Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

This is a broad, catch-all category of works that fit best here and not elsewhere. If you haven't found it someplace else, you might want to look here.

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Wed Mar 27, 2019 12:47 am

Part 1 of 2

Hindu–German Conspiracy
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 3/26/19

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


The Hindu–German Conspiracy(Note on the name) was a series of plans between 1914 and 1917 by Indian nationalist groups to attempt Pan-Indian rebellion against the British Raj during World War I, formulated between the Indian revolutionary underground and exiled or self-exiled nationalists who formed, in the United States, the Ghadar Party, and in Germany, the Indian independence committee, in the decade preceding the Great War.[1][2][3] The conspiracy was drawn up at the beginning of the war, with extensive support from the German Foreign Office, the German consulate in San Francisco, as well as some support from Ottoman Turkey and the Irish republican movement. The most prominent plan attempted to foment unrest and trigger a Pan-Indian mutiny in the British Indian Army from Punjab to Singapore. This plot was planned to be executed in February 1915 with the aim of overthrowing British rule over the Indian subcontinent. The February mutiny was ultimately thwarted when British intelligence infiltrated the Ghadarite movement and arrested key figures. Mutinies in smaller units and garrisons within India were also crushed.

Other related events include the 1915 Singapore Mutiny, the Annie Larsen arms plot, the Jugantar–German plot, the German mission to Kabul, the mutiny of the Connaught Rangers in India, as well as, by some accounts, the Black Tom explosion in 1916. Parts of the conspiracy included efforts to subvert the British Indian Army in the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I.

The Indo-German alliance and the conspiracy were the target of a worldwide British intelligence effort, which was successful in preventing further attempts. American intelligence agencies arrested key figures in the aftermath of the Annie Larsen affair in 1917. The conspiracy resulted in the Lahore conspiracy case trials in India as well as the Hindu–German Conspiracy Trial—at the time the longest and most expensive trial ever held in the United States.[1]

This series of events was consequential to the Indian independence movement. Though largely subdued by the end of World War I, it came to be a major factor in reforming the Raj's Indian policy.[4] Similar efforts were made during World War II in Germany and in Japanese-controlled Southeast Asia, where Subhas Chandra Bose formed the Indische Legion and the Indian National Army respectively, and in Italy where Mohammad Iqbal Shedai formed the Battaglione Azad Hindoustan.

Background

Nationalism had become more and more prominent in India throughout the last decades of the 19th century as a result of the social, economic and political changes instituted in the country through the greater part of the century.[5][6][7][8][9] The Indian National Congress, founded in 1885, developed as a major platform for loyalists' demands for political liberalisation and for increased autonomy. The nationalist movement grew with the founding of underground groups in the 1890s. It became particularly strong, radical and violent in Bengal and in Punjab, along with smaller but nonetheless notable movements in Maharashtra, Madras and other places of South India.[10] In Bengal the revolutionaries more often than not recruited the educated youth of the urban middle-class Bhadralok community that epitomised the "classic" Indian revolutionary, while in Punjab the rural and military society sustained organised violence.[11]

Indian revolutionary underground

Image
Rash Behari Bose, key leader of the Delhi–Lahore Conspiracy and, later, of the February plot

The controversial 1905 partition of Bengal had a widespread political impact. Acting as a stimulus for radical nationalist opinion in India and abroad, it became a focal issue for Indian revolutionaries.[12][13][14] Revolutionary organisations like Jugantar and Anushilan Samiti had emerged in the 20th century. Several significant events took place. These included assassinations and attempted assassinations of civil servants, prominent public figures and Indian informants, including one in 1907 aiming to kill the Bengal Lieutenant-Governor Sir Andrew Fraser. Matters came to a head when the 1912 Delhi–Lahore Conspiracy, led by erstwhile Jugantar member Rash Behari Bose, attempted to assassinate the then Viceroy of India, Charles Hardinge. In the aftermath of this event, the British Indian police made concentrated police and intelligence efforts to destroy the Bengali and Punjabi revolutionary underground. Though the movement came under intense pressure for some time, Rash Behari successfully evaded capture for nearly three years. By the time World War I had begun in Europe in 1914, the revolutionary movement had revived in Punjab and Bengal. In Bengal the movement, with a safe haven in the French base of Chandernagore, had sufficient strength to all but paralyse the state administration.[15][16][17] The earliest mention of a conspiracy for armed revolution in India appears in Nixon's Report on Revolutionary Organisation, which reported that Jatin Mukherjee (Bagha Jatin) and Naren Bhattacharya had met the Crown Prince of Germany during the latter's visit to Calcutta in 1912, and obtained an assurance that they would receive supplies of arms and ammunition.[18] At the same time an increasingly strong pan-Islamic movement started developing, mainly in the north and north-west regions of India. With the onset of the war in 1914, the members of this movement formed an important component of the conspiracy.[19]

See also: Sinn Féin, Roger Casement, and John Devoy

At the time of the partition of Bengal, Shyamji Krishna Varma founded India House in London and received extensive support from notable expatriate Indians including Madam Bhikaji Cama, Lala Lajpat Rai, S. R. Rana, and Dadabhai Naoroji. The organisation – ostensibly a residence for Indian students – in reality sought to promote nationalist opinion and pro-independence work. India House drew young radical activists of the likes of M. L. Dhingra, V. D. Savarkar, V. N. Chatterjee, M. P. T. Acharya and Lala Har Dayal.[20][21][22] It developed links with the revolutionary movement in India and nurtured it with arms, funds and propaganda. The authorities in India banned Indian Sociologist and other literature published by the House as "seditious". Under V. D. Savarkar's leadership, the House rapidly developed as a centre for intellectual and political activism and as a meeting- ground for radical revolutionaries among Indian students in Britain,[23][24][25] earning the moniker "The most dangerous organisation outside India" from Valentine Chirol.[26][27] In 1909 in London M. L. Dhingra fatally shot Sir W. H. Curzon Wyllie, political aide-de-camp to the Secretary of State for India. In the aftermath of the assassination, the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office rapidly suppressed India House.[28] Its leadership fled to Europe and to the United States of America. Some (like Chatterjee) moved to Germany; Har Dayal and many others moved to Paris.[20][21]

Organisations founded in the United States and in Japan emulated the example of London's India House.[29] Krishna Varma nurtured close interactions with Turkish and Egyptian nationalists and with Clan na Gael in the United States. The joint efforts of Mohammed Barkatullah, S. L. Joshi and George Freeman founded the Pan-Aryan Association — modelled after Krishna Varma's Indian Home Rule Society — in New York in 1906.[30] Barkatullah himself had become closely associated with Krishna Varma during a previous stay in London, and his subsequent career in Japan put him at the heart of Indian political activities there.[30] Myron Phelps [Myron H. Phelps, a Broadway (New York) lawyer)], an acquaintance of Krishna Varma and an admirer of Swami Vivekananda, founded an "India House" in Manhattan in New York in January 1908.[30] Amidst a growing Indian student population, erstwhile members of the India House in London succeeded in extending the nationalist work across the Atlantic. The Gaelic American reprinted articles from the Indian Sociologist, while liberal press-laws allowed free circulation of the Indian Sociologist. Supporters could ship such nationalist literature and pamphlets freely across the world.[30] New York increasingly became an important centre for the Indian movement, such that Free Hindustan— a political revolutionary journal closely mirroring the Indian Sociologist and the Gaelic American published by Taraknath Das—[1] moved in 1908 from Vancouver and Seattle to New York. Das established extensive collaboration with the Gaelic American with help from George Freeman before it was proscribed in 1910 under British diplomatic pressure.[31] This Irish collaboration with Indian revolutionaries resulted in some of the early but failed efforts to smuggle arms into India, including a 1908 attempt on board a ship called the SS Moraitis which sailed from New York for the Persian Gulf before it was searched at Smyrna.[32][33] The Irish community later provided valuable intelligence, logistics, communication, media, and legal support to the German, Indian, and Irish conspirators. Those involved in this liaison, and later involved in the plot, included major Irish republicans and Irish-American nationalists like John Devoy, Joseph McGarrity, Roger Casement, Éamon de Valera, Father Peter Yorke and Larry de Lacey.[1] These pre-war contacts effectively set up a network which the German foreign office tapped into as war began in Europe.[1]

Ghadar Party

Image
An immigrant Punjabi family in America. c. 1900s

See also: Har Dayal, Sohan Singh Bhakna, and Tarak Nath Das

Large-scale Indian immigration to the Pacific coast of North America took place in the 20th century, especially from Punjab, which faced an economic depression. The Canadian government met this influx with legislation aimed at limiting the entry of South Asians into Canada and at restricting the political rights of those already in the country. The Punjabi community had hitherto been an important loyal force for the British Empire and the Commonwealth. The community had expected that its commitment would be honoured with the same welcome and rights which the British and colonial governments extended to British and white immigrants. The restrictive legislation fed growing discontent, protests and anti-colonial sentiments within the community. Faced with increasingly difficult situations, the community began organising itself into political groups. Many Punjabis also moved to the United States, but they encountered similar political and social problems.[17] Meanwhile, India House and nationalist activism of Indian students had begun declining on the east coast of North America towards 1910, but activity gradually shifted west to San Francisco. The arrival at this time of Har Dayal from Europe bridged the gap between the intellectual agitators in New York and the predominantly Punjabi labour workers and migrants in the west coast, and laid the foundations of the Ghadar movement.[31]

Image
Ghadar di gunj, an early Ghadarite compilation of nationalist and socialist literature, was banned in India in 1913.

The Ghadar Party, initially the 'Pacific Coast Hindustan Association', was formed in 1913 in the United States under the leadership of Har Dayal, with Sohan Singh Bhakna as its president. It drew members from Indian immigrants, largely from Punjab.[17] Many of its members were also from the University of California at Berkeley including Dayal, Tarak Nath Das, Kartar Singh Sarabha and V.G. Pingle. The party quickly gained support from Indian expatriates, especially in the United States, Canada and Asia. Ghadar meetings were held in Los Angeles, Oxford, Vienna, Washington, D.C., and Shanghai.[34]

Ghadar's ultimate goal was to overthrow British colonial authority in India by means of an armed revolution. It viewed the Congress-led mainstream movement for dominion status modest and the latter's constitutional methods as soft. Ghadar's foremost strategy was to entice Indian soldiers to revolt.[17] To that end, in November 1913 Ghadar established the Yugantar Ashram press in San Francisco. The press produced the Hindustan Ghadar newspaper and other nationalist literature.[34]

Towards the end of 1913, the party established contact with prominent revolutionaries in India, including Rash Behari Bose. An Indian edition of the Hindustan Ghadar essentially espoused the philosophies of anarchism and revolutionary terrorism against British interests in India. Political discontent and violence mounted in Punjab, and Ghadarite publications that reached Bombay from California were deemed seditious and banned by the Raj. These events, compounded by evidence of prior Ghadarite incitement in the Delhi-Lahore Conspiracy of 1912, led the British government to pressure the American State Department to suppress Indian revolutionary activities and Ghadarite literature, which emanated mostly from San Francisco.[35][36]

Germany and the Berlin Committee

With the onset of World War I, an Indian revolutionary group called the Berlin Committee (later called the Indian Independence Committee) was formed in Germany. Its chief architects were C. R. Pillai and V. N. Chatterjee.[37][38] The committee drew members from Indian students and erstwhile members of the India House including Abhinash Bhattacharya, Dr. Abdul Hafiz, Padmanabhan Pillai, A. R. Pillai, M. P. T. Acharya and Gopal Paranjape. Germany had earlier opened the Intelligence Bureau for the East headed by archaeologist and historian Max von Oppenheim.

Max (Freiherr) von Oppenheim (15 July 1860 in Cologne – 17 November 1946 in Landshut) was a German lawyer, diplomat, ancient historian, and archaeologist. He was a member of the Oppenheim banking dynasty. Abandoning his career in diplomacy, he discovered the site of Tell Halaf in 1899 and conducted excavations there in 1911-13 and again in 1929. Bringing many of his finds to Berlin, he exhibited them in a private museum. This was destroyed by Allied bombing in World War II. However, most of the findings were recently restored and have been exhibited again at Berlin and Bonn.

Oppenheim was a controversial figure before and during World War I because he was considered a spy by the French and British. He did in fact engage in anti-Allied propaganda, aimed at stirring up the Muslim populations of the Allied-controlled territories against their colonial masters.

-- Max von Oppenheim, by Wikipedia


Oppenheim and Arthur Zimmermann, the State Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the German Empire, actively supported the Berlin committee, which had links with Jatin Mukherjee— a Jugantar Party member and at the time one of the leading revolutionary figures in Bengal.[15][20][39][40] The office of the t25-member committee at No.38 Wielandstrasse was accorded full embassy status.[41]

The German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg authorised German activity against British India as World War I broke out in September 1914. Germany decided to actively support the Ghadarite plans.[37] Using the links established between Indian and Irish residents in Germany (including Irish nationalist and poet Roger Casement) and the German Foreign Office, Oppenheim tapped into the Indo-Irish network in the United States. Har Dayal had helped organise the Ghadar party before his arrest in the United States in 1914. He however jumped bail and made his way to Switzerland, leaving the party and publications in the charge of Ram Chandra Bharadwaj, who became the Ghadar president in 1914. The German consulate in San Francisco was tasked to make contact with Ghadar leaders in California. A naval lieutenant by the name of Wilhelm von Brincken with the help of the Indian nationalist journalist Tarak Nath Das and an intermediary by the name of Charles Lattendorf established links with Bharadwaj. Meanwhile, in Switzerland the Berlin committee was able to convince Har Dayal that organising a revolution in India was feasible.[2]

Conspiracy

Image
Punjabi Sikhs aboard the Komagata Maru in Vancouver's English Bay, 1914. The Canadian government banned the passengers from landing in Canada and the ship was forced to return to India. The events surrounding the Komagata Maru incident served as a catalyst for the Ghadarite cause.

In May 1914, the Canadian government refused to allow the 400 Indian passengers of the ship Komagata Maru to disembark at Vancouver. The voyage had been planned by Gurdit Singh Sandhu as an attempt to circumvent Canadian exclusion laws that effectively prevented Indian immigration. Before the ship reached Vancouver, German radio announced its approach, and British Columbian authorities prepared to prevent the passengers from entering Canada. The incident became a focal point for the Indian community in Canada which rallied in support of the passengers and against the government's policies. After a two-month legal battle, 24 of them were allowed to immigrate. The ship was escorted out of Vancouver by the Protected cruiser HMCS Rainbow and returned to India. On reaching Calcutta, the passengers were detained under the Defence of India Act at Budge Budge by the British Indian government, which made efforts to forcibly transport them to Punjab. This caused rioting at Budge Budge and resulted in fatalities on both sides.[42] Ghadar leaders like Barkatullah and Taraknath Das used the inflammatory passions surrounding the Komagata Maru event as a rallying point and successfully brought many disaffected Indians in North America into the party's fold.[43]

The British Indian Army, meanwhile, was contributing significantly to the Allied war effort in World War I. Consequently, a reduced force, estimated to have been 15,000 troops in late 1914, was stationed in India.[44] It was in this scenario that concrete plans for organising uprisings in India were made.

In September 1913 a Ghadarite named Mathra Singh visited Shanghai to promote the nationalist cause amongst Indians there, followed by a visit to India in January 1914 when Singh circulated Ghadar literature amongst Indian soldiers through clandestine sources before leaving for Hong Kong. Singh reported that the situation in India as favourable for revolution.[43][45]

By October 1914, many Ghadarites had returned to India and were assigned tasks like contacting Indian revolutionaries and organisations, spreading propaganda and literature, and arranging to get arms into the country.[46] The first group of 60 Ghadarites led by Jawala Singh, left San Francisco for Canton aboard the steamship Korea on 29 August. They were to sail on to India, where they would be provided with arms to organise a revolt. At Canton, more Indians joined, and the group, now numbering about 150, sailed for Calcutta on a Japanese vessel. They were to be joined by more Ghadarites arriving in smaller groups. During September and October, about 300 Indians left for India in various ships like SS Siberia, Chinyo Maru, China, Manchuria, SS Tenyo Maru, SS Mongolia and SS Shinyo Maru.[37][45][46] Although the Korea's party itself was uncovered and arrested on arrival at Calcutta, a successful underground network was established between the United States and India, through Shanghai, Swatow, and Siam. Tehl Singh, the Ghadar operative in Shanghai, is believed to have spent $30,000 for helping the revolutionaries to get into India.[47] The Ghadarites in India were able to establish contact with sympathisers within the British Indian Army as well as build networks with underground revolutionary groups.


East Asia

Efforts had begun as early as 1911 to procure arms and smuggle them into India.[48] When a clear idea of the conspiracy emerged, more earnest and elaborate plans were made to obtain arms and to enlist international support. Herambalal Gupta, who had arrived in the United States in 1914 at the Berlin Committee's directives, took over the leadership of American wing of the conspiracy after the failure of the SS Korea mission. Gupta immediately began efforts to obtain men and arms. While men were in plentiful supply with more and more Indians coming forward to join the Ghadarite cause, obtaining arms for the uprising proved to be more difficult.[49]

The revolutionaries started negotiations with the Chinese government through James Dietrich, who held Sun Yat-sen's power of attorney, to buy a million rifles. However, the deal fell through when it was realised that the weapons offered were obsolete flintlocks and muzzle loaders. From China, Gupta went to Japan to try to procure arms and to enlist Japanese support for the Indian independence movement. However, he was forced into hiding within 48 hours when he came to know that the Japanese authorities planned to hand him over to the British.[49] Later reports indicated he was protected at this time by Toyama Mitsuru right-wing political leader and founder of the Genyosha nationalist secret society.[50]

The Indian Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore, a strong supporter of Pan-Asianism, met Japanese premier Count Terauchi and Count Okuma, a former premier, in an attempt to enlist support for the Ghadarite movement.
[51] Tarak Nath Das urged Japan to align with Germany, on the grounds that American war preparation could actually be directed against Japan.[51] Later in 1915, Abani Mukherji— a Jugantar activist and associate of Rash Behari Bose— is also known to have tried unsuccessfully to arrange for arms from Japan. The ascendancy of Li Yuanhong to Chinese Presidency in 1916, led to the negotiations reopening through his former private secretary who resided in the United States at the time. In exchange for allowing arms shipments to India via China's borders, China was offered German military assistance and the rights to 10% of any material shipped to India via China. The negotiations were ultimately unsuccessful due to Sun Yat Sen's opposition to an alliance with Germany.[52]

Europe and United States

Image
Franz von Papen, later the Chancellor of Germany briefly before Hitler's rise to power. Papen was key in organising the arms shipments.

The Indian nationalists then in Paris had, with Egyptian revolutionaries, made plans to assassinate Lord Kitchener as early as 1911. These plans were however not implemented.][53] After the war began, this plan was revived, and Har Dayal's close associate Gobind Behari Lal visited Liverpool in March 1915 from New York to put this plan in action. He may also have intended at this time to bomb the docks in Liverpool. However, these plans ultimately failed.[53] Chattopadhyaya also attempted at this time to revive links with the remnants of India House that survived in London, and through Swiss, German and English sympathisers then resident in Britain. Among them were Meta Brunner (a Swiss woman), Vishna Dube (an Indian man) and his common law German wife Anna Brandt, and Hilda Howsin (an English woman in Yorkshire). Chattopadhyaya's correspondences were however traced by censor, leading to the arrest of the cell.[54] Among other plans that were considered at the time were large scale conspiracies in June 1915 to assassinate the Foreign Secretary Lord Grey and War minister Lord Kitchener. In addition, they also intended to target the French President Raymond Poincaré and Prime Minister René Viviani, King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy and his Prime Minister Antonio Salandra. These plans were coordinated with the Italian anarchists, with explosives manufactured in Italy. Barkatullah, by now in Europe and working with the Berlin Committee, arranged for these explosives to be sent to the German consulate in Zurich, from where it was expected to be taken charge of by an Italian anarchist named Bertoni. However, British intelligence was able to infiltrate this plot, and successfully pressed Swiss police to expel Abdul Hafiz.[54]

In the United States, an elaborate plan and arrangement was made to ship arms from the country and from the Far East through Shanghai, Batavia, Bangkok and Burma.[49] Even while Herambalal Gupta was on his mission in China and Japan, other plans were explored to ship arms from the United States and East Asia.
The German high command decided early on that assistance to the Indian groups would be pointless unless given on a substantial scale.[55] In October 1914, German Vice Consul E.H von Schack in San Francisco approved the arrangements for funds and armaments. $200,000 worth of small arms and ammunition were acquired by the German military attaché Captain Franz von Papen through Krupp agents, and arranged for its shipment to India through San Diego, Java, and Burma. The arsenal included 8,080 Springfield rifles of Spanish–American War vintage, 2,400 Springfield carbines, 410 Hotchkiss repeating rifles, 4,000,000 cartridges, 500 Colt revolvers with 100,000 cartridges, and 250 Mauser pistols along with ammunition.[55] The schooner Annie Larsen and the sailing ship SS Henry S were hired to ship the arms out of the United States and transfer it to the SS Maverick. The ownership of ships were hidden under a massive smokescreen involving fake companies and oil business in south-east Asia. For the arms shipment itself, a successful cover was set up to lead British agents to believe that the arms were for the warring factions of the Mexican Civil War.[2][47][56][57][58][59][60] This ruse was successful enough that the rival Villa faction offered $15,000 to divert the shipment to a Villa-controlled port.[2]

Although the shipment was meant to supply the mutiny planned for February 1915, it was not dispatched until June of that year, by which time the conspiracy had been uncovered in India and major leaders had been arrested or gone into hiding. The plot for the shipment itself failed when disastrous co-ordination prevented a successful rendezvous off Socorro Island with the Maverick. The plot had already been infiltrated by British intelligence through Indian and Irish agents linked closely with the conspiracy. Upon returning to Hoquiam, Washington after several failed attempts, the Annie Larsen's cargo was promptly seized by US customs.
[59][60] The cargo was sold at an auction despite the German Ambassador Count Johann von Bernstoff's attempts to take possession, insisting they were meant for German East Africa.[61] The Hindu–German Conspiracy Trial opened in 1917 in the United States on charges of gun running and at the time was one of the lengthiest and most expensive trials in American legal history.[1] Franz von Papen attempted to sabotage rail lines in Canada and destroy the Welland Canal. He also attempted to supply rifles and dynamite to Sikhs in British Columbia to blast railway bridges. These plots in Canada did not materialise. Among other events in the United States that have been linked to the conspiracy is the Black Tom explosion when, on the night of 30 July 1916, saboteurs blew up nearly 2 million tons of arms and ammunition at the Black Tom terminal at New York harbour awaiting shipment in support of the British war effort. Although blamed solely on German agents at the time, later investigations by the Directorate of Naval Intelligence in the aftermath of the Annie Larsen incident unearthed links between the Black Tom explosion and Franz von Papen, the Irish movement, the Indian movement as well as Communist elements active in the United States.[62][63]

Pan-Indian mutiny

See also: 1915 Singapore Mutiny and Ingress into India Ordinance, 1914

By the start of 1915, many Ghadarites (nearly 8,000 in the Punjab province alone by some estimates) had returned to India.[15][64] However, they were not assigned a central leadership and begun their work on an ad hoc basis. Although some were rounded up by the police on suspicion, many remained at large and began establishing contacts with garrisons in major cities like Lahore, Ferozepur and Rawalpindi. Various plans had been made to attack the military arsenal at Mian Meer, near Lahore and initiate a general uprising on 15 November 1914. In another plan, a group of Sikh soldiers, the manjha jatha, planned to start a mutiny in the 23rd Cavalry at the Lahore cantonment on 26 November. A further plan called for a mutiny to start on 30 November from Ferozepur under Nidham Singh.[65] In Bengal, the Jugantar, through Jatin Mukherjee, established contacts with the garrison at Fort William in Calcutta.[15][39] In August 1914, Mukherjee's group had seized a large consignment of guns and ammunition from the Rodda company, a major gun manufacturing firm in India. In December 1914, several politically motivated armed robberies to obtain funds were carried out in Calcutta. Mukherjee kept in touch with Rash Behari Bose through Kartar Singh and V.G. Pingle. These rebellious acts, which were until then organised separately by different groups, were brought into a common umbrella under the leadership of Rash Behari Bose in North India, V. G. Pingle in Maharashtra, and Sachindranath Sanyal in Benares.[15][39][40] A plan was made for a unified general uprising, with the date set for 21 February 1915.[15][39]

February 1915

Image
The public executions of convicted mutineers at Outram Road, Singapore, c. March 1915

In India, unaware of the delayed shipment and confident of being able to rally the Indian sepoy, the plot for the mutiny took its final shape. Under the plans, the 23rd Cavalry in Punjab was to seize weapons and kill their officers while on roll call on 21 February.[43] This was to be followed by mutiny in the 26th Punjab, which was to be the signal for the uprising to begin, resulting in an advance on Delhi and Lahore. The Bengal cell was to look for the Punjab Mail entering the Howrah Station the next day (which would have been cancelled if Punjab was seized) and was to strike immediately. However, Punjab CID successfully infiltrated the conspiracy at the last moment through a sepoy named Kirpal Singh.[43] Sensing that their plans had been compromised, D-Day was brought forward to 19 February, but even these plans found their way to the intelligence.[43] Plans for revolt by the 130th Baluchi Regiment at Rangoon on 21 January were thwarted. Attempted revolts in the 26th Punjab, 7th Rajput, 130th Baluch, 24th Jat Artillery and other regiments were suppressed. Mutinies in Firozpur, Lahore, and Agra were also suppressed and many key leaders of the conspiracy were arrested, although some managed to escape or evade arrest. A last-ditch attempt was made by Kartar Singh and V. G. Pingle to trigger a mutiny in the 12th Cavalry regiment at Meerut.[57] Kartar Singh escaped from Lahore, but was arrested in Varanasi, and V. G. Pingle was apprehended in Meerut. Mass arrests followed as the Ghadarites were rounded up in Punjab and the Central Provinces. Rash Behari Bose escaped from Lahore and in May 1915 fled to Japan. Other leaders, including Giani Pritam Singh, Swami Satyananda Puri and others fled to Thailand.[43][57]

On 15 February, the 5th Light Infantry stationed at Singapore was among the few units to mutiny successfully. Nearly eight hundred and fifty of its troops mutinied on the afternoon of the 15th, along with nearly a hundred men of the Malay States Guides. This mutiny lasted almost seven days, and resulted in the deaths of 47 British soldiers and local civilians. The mutineers also released the interned crew of the SMS Emden, who were asked by the mutineers to join them but refused and actually took up arms and defended the barracks after the mutineers had left (sheltering some British refugees as well) until the prison camp was relieved.[66] The mutiny was suppressed only after French, Russian and Japanese ships arrived with reinforcements.[67][68] Of 200 people tried at Singapore, 47 mutineers were shot in public executions,[69][70] the rest were transported for life to East Africa. Most of the rest were deported for life or given jail terms ranging between seven and twenty years.[67] In all 800 mutineers were either shot imprisoned or exiled[66] Some historians, including Hew Strachan, argue that although Ghadar agents operated within the Singapore unit, the mutiny was isolated and not linked to the conspiracy.[71] Others deem this as instigated by the Silk Letter Movement which became intricately related to the Ghadarite conspiracy.[19]

Christmas Day Plot

Image
Bagha Jatin, wounded after his final battle at the banks of Burha Balang, off Balasore. His enterprise was deemed one of the most significant threats to British India in autumn 1915.

In April 1915, unaware of the failure of the Annie Larsen plan, Papen arranged, through Krupp's American representative Hans Tauscher, a second shipment of arms, consisting of 7,300 Springfield rifles, 1,930 pistols, 10 Gatling guns and nearly 3,000,000 cartridges.[72][73] The arms were to be shipped in mid June to Surabaya in the East Indies on the Holland American steamship SS Djember. However, the intelligence network operated by Courtenay Bennett, the Consul General to New York, was able to trace the cargo to Tauscher in New York and passed the information on to the company, thwarting these plans as well.[72] In the meantime, even after the February plot had been scuttled, the plans for an uprising continued in Bengal through the Jugantar cohort under Jatin Mukherjee (Bagha Jatin). German agents in Thailand and Burma, most prominently Emil and Theodor Helferrich— brothers of the German Finance minister Karl Helfferich— established links with Jugantar through Jitendranath Lahiri in March that year. In April, Jatin's chief lieutenant Narendranath Bhattacharya met with the Helfferichs and was informed of the expected arrival of the Maverick with arms. Although these were originally intended for Ghadar use, the Berlin Committee modified the plans, to have arms shipped into India to the eastern coast of India, through Hatia on the Chittagong coast, Raimangal in the Sundarbans and Balasore in Orissa, instead of Karachi as originally decided.[73] From the coast of the Bay of Bengal, these would be collected by Jatin's group. The date of insurrection was fixed for Christmas Day 1915, earning the name "The Christmas Day Plot".[74] Jatin estimated that he would be able to win over the 14th Rajput Regiment in Calcutta and cut the line to Madras at Balasore and thus take control of Bengal.[73] Jugantar also received funds (estimated to be Rs 33,000 between June and August 1915) from the Helfferich brothers through a fictitious firm in Calcutta.[75] However, it was at this time that the details of the Maverick and Jugantar plans were leaked to Beckett, the British Consul at Batavia, by a defecting Baltic-German agent under the alias "Oren". The Maverick was seized, while in India, police destroyed the underground movement in Calcutta as an unaware Jatin proceeded according to plan to the Bay of Bengal coast in Balasore. He was followed there by Indian police and on 9 September 1915, he and a group of five revolutionaries armed with Mauser pistols made a last stand on the banks of the river Burha Balang. Seriously wounded in a gun battle that lasted seventy five minutes, Jatin died the next day in the town of Balasore.[15][76]

To provide the Bengal group enough time to capture Calcutta and to prevent reinforcements from being rushed in, a mutiny coinciding with Jugantar's Christmas Day insurrection was planned for Burma with arms smuggled in from neutral Thailand.[76][77][78] Thailand (Siam) was a strong base for the Ghadarites, and plans for rebellion in Burma (which was a part of British India at the time) had been proposed by the Ghadar party as early as October 1914, which called for Burma to be used as a base for subsequent advance into India.[76][78] This Siam-Burma plan was finally concluded in January 1915. Ghadarites from branches in China and United States, including Atma Ram, Thakar Singh, and Banta Singh from Shanghai and Santokh Singh and Bhagwan Singh from San Francisco, attempted to infiltrate Burma Military Police in Thailand, which was composed mostly of Sikhs and Punjabi Muslims. Early in 1915, Atma Ram had also visited Calcutta and Punjab and linked up with the revolutionary underground there, including Jugantar.[45][40] Herambalal Gupta and the German consul at Chicago arranged to have German operatives George Paul Boehm, Henry Schult, and Albert Wehde sent to Siam through Manila with the purpose of training the Indians. Santokh Singh returned to Shanghai tasked to send two expeditions, one to reach the Indian border via Yunnan and the other to penetrate upper Burma and join with revolutionary elements there.[65] The Germans, while in Manila, also attempted to transfer the arms cargo of two German ships, the Sachsen and the Suevia, to Siam in a schooner seeking refuge at Manila harbour. However, US customs stopped these attempts. In the meantime, with the help of the German Consul to Thailand Remy, the Ghadarite established a training headquarters in the jungles near the Thai-Burma border for Ghadarites arriving from China and Canada. German Consul General at Shanghai, Knipping, sent three officers of the Peking Embassy Guard for training and in addition arranged for a Norwegian agent in Swatow to smuggle arms through.[79] However, the Thai Police high command, which was largely British, discovered these plans and Indian police infiltrated the plot through an Indian secret agent who was revealed the details by the Austrian chargé d'affaires. Thailand, although officially neutral, was allied closely with Britain and British India. On 21 July, the newly arrived British Minister Herbert Dering presented Foreign Minister Prince Devawongse with the request for arrest and extradition of Ghadarites identified by the Indian agent, ultimately resulting in the arrest of leading Ghadarites in August. Only a single raid into Burma was launched by six Ghadarites, who were captured and later hanged.[76][79][80]

Also to coincide with the proposed Jugantar insurrection in Calcutta was a planned raid on the penal colony in the Andaman Islands with a German volunteer force raised from East Indies. The raid would release the political prisoners, helping to raise an expeditionary Indian force that would threaten the Indian coast.[75][81] The plan was proposed by Vincent Kraft, a German planter in Batavia who had been wounded fighting in France. It was approved by the foreign office on 14 May 1915, after consultation with the Indian committee, and the raid was planned for Christmas Day 1915 by a force of nearly one hundred Germans. Knipping made plans for shipping arms to the Andaman islands. However, Vincent Kraft was a double agent, and leaked details of Knipping's plans to British intelligence. His own bogus plans for the raid were in the meantime revealed to Beckett by "Oren", but given the successive failures of the Indo-German plans, the plans for the operations were abandoned on the recommendations of both the Berlin Committee and Knipping.[82]

Afghanistan and the Middle East

Image
Mahendra Pratap (centre) at the head of the Mission with the German and Turkish delegates in Kabul, 1915. Seated to his right is Werner Otto von Hentig.

Another arm of the conspiracy was directed at the Indian troops who were serving in Middle East, while efforts were directed at drawing Afghanistan into the war on the side of the Central Powers, which it was hoped would incite a nationalist or pan-Islamic uprising in India and destabilise the British recruiting grounds in Punjab and across India. After Russia's defeat in the 1905 Russo-Japanese war, her influence had declined, and it was Afghanistan that was at the time seen by Britain as the only power in the sub-continent capable of directly threatening India.[83]

In the spring of 1915, an Indo-German expedition was sent to Afghanistan via the overland route through Persia. Led by the exiled Indian prince Raja Mahendra Pratap, this mission sought to invite the Afghan Emir Habibullah Khan to break with Britain, declare his independence, join the war on the Central side, and invade British India. It managed to evade the considerable Anglo-Russian efforts that were directed at intercepting it in Mesopotamia and in the Persian deserts before it reached Afghanistan in August 1915.[84][85] In Afghanistan, it was joined in Kabul by members of the pan-Islamic group Darul Uloom Deoband led by Maulana Ubaidullah Sindhi. This group had left India for Kabul at the beginning of the war while another group under Mahmud al-Hasan made its way to Hijaz, where they hoped to seek support from the Afghan Emir, the Ottoman Empire and Imperial Germany for a pan-Islamic insurrection beginning in the tribal belt of north-west India.[86][87] The Indo-German mission pressed Emir Habibullah to break from his neutral stance and open diplomatic relations with Germany, eventually hoping to rally the Emir to the German war effort.[88][89] Habibullah Khan vacillated on the mission's proposals through much of the winter of 1915, hoping to maintain his neutral stance till the course of the war offered a concrete picture. However, the mission opened at this time secret negotiations with the pro-German elements in the Emir's court and advisory council, including his brother Nasrullah Khan and son Amanullah Khan. It found support among Afghan intellectuals, religious leaders and the Afghan press which rallied with increasingly anti-British and pro-Central articles. By 1916 the Raj was forced to intercept copies of the Afghan newspaper Siraj al Akhbar sent to India.[90] It raised to the Emir a threat of a coup d'état in his country and unrest among his tribesmen, who were beginning to see him as subservient to British authority even as Turkey called for a pan-Islamic Jihad.

In December 1915, the Indian members founded the Provisional Government of India, which it was hoped would weigh on Habibullah's advisory council to aid India and force the Emir's hands. In January 1916, the Emir approved a draft treaty with Germany to buy time. However, the Central campaign in the Middle East faltered at around this time, ending hopes that an overland route through Persia could be secured for aid and assistance to Afghanistan. The German members of the mission left Afghanistan in June 1916, ending the German intrigues in the country.[91] Nonetheless, Mahendra Pratap and his Provisional Government stayed behind, attempting to establish links with Japan, Republican China and Tsarist Russia. After the Russian revolution, Pratap opened negotiations with the Soviet Union, visiting Trotsky in Red Petrograd in 1918, and Lenin in Moscow in 1919 and he visited the Kaiser in Berlin in 1918.[92] He pressed for a joint Soviet-German offensive through Afghanistan into India. This was considered by the Soviets for some time after the 1919 coup in Afghanistan in which Amanullah Khan was instated as the Emir and the third Anglo-Afghan war began. Pratap may also have influenced the "Kalmyk Project", a Soviet plan to invade India through Tibet and the Himalayan buffer states.[93][94]

In the Middle Eastern theatre, members of the Berlin Committee, including Har Dayal and M. P. T. Acharya, were sent on missions to Baghdad and Syria in the summer of 1915, tasked to infiltrate the Indian Expeditionary Force in southern Mesopotamia and Egypt and to attempt to assassinate British officers.[95] The Indian effort was divided into two groups, one consisting of a Bengali revolutionary P.N. Dutt (alias Dawood Ali Khan) and Pandurang Khankoje. This group arrived at Bushire, where they worked with Wilhelm Wassmuss and distributed nationalist and revolutionary literature among Indian troops in Mesopotamia and Persia. The other group, working with Egyptian nationalists, attempted to block the Suez Canal.[96] These groups carried out successful clandestine work in spreading nationalist literature and propaganda amongst the Indian troops in Mesopotamia, and on one occasion even bombed an officer's mess.[95] Nationalist work also extended at this time to recruiting Indian prisoners of war in Constantinople, Bushire, Kut-al-Amara.[19][97] M. P. T. Acharya's own works were directed at forming the Indian National Volunteer Corps with the help of Indian civilians in Turkey, and to recruiting Indian prisoners of war. He is further known to have worked along with Wilhelm Wassmuss in Bushire amongst Indian troops.[96][97] The efforts were, however, ultimately hampered by differences between the Berlin committee members who were predominantly Hindus, and Indian revolutionaries already in Turkey who were largely Muslims.[95] Further, the Egyptian nationalists distrusted the Berlin Committee, which was seen by the former as a German instrument.[96]

Nonetheless, in culmination of these efforts, Indian prisoners of war from France, Turkey, Germany, and Mesopotamia—especially Basra, Bushehr, and from Kut al Amara—were recruited, raising the Indian Volunteer Corps that fought with Turkish forces on many fronts.[98] The Deobandis, led by Amba Prasad Sufi, attempted to organise incursions to the western border of India from Persia, through Balochistan, to Punjab. Amba Prasad was joined during the war by Kedar Nath Sondhi, Rishikesh Letha and Amin Chaudhry. These Indian troops were involved in the capture of the frontier city of Karman and the detention of the British consul there, and also successfully harassed Percy Sykes' Persian campaign against the Baluchi and Persian tribal chiefs who were aided by the Germans.[99][100] The Aga Khan's brother was killed while fighting the rebels.[101] The rebels also successfully harassed British forces in Sistan in Afghanistan, confining them to Karamshir in Balochistan, and later moving towards Karachi. Some reports indicate they took control of the coastal towns of Gawador and Dawar. The Baluchi chief of Bampur, having declared his independence from British rule, also joined the Ghadarites. But the war in Europe turned for the worse for Turkey and Baghdad was captured by the British forces. The Ghadarite forces, their supply lines starved, were finally dislodged. They retreated to regroup at Shiraz, where they were finally defeated after a bitter fight during the siege of Shiraz. Amba Prasad Sufi was killed in this battle, but the Ghadarites carried on guerrilla warfare along with Iranian partisans until 1919.[100][102] By the end of 1917, divisions had begun appearing between the Ghadar Party in America on the one hand, and the Berlin Committee and the German high command on the other. Reports from German agents working with Ghadarites in Southeast Asia and the United States clearly indicated to the European wing a significant element of disorganisation, as well as unrealism in gauging public mood and support within the Ghadarite organisation. The failure of the February plot, the lack of bases in Southeast Asia following China's participation in the war in 1917, and the problems of supporting a Southeast Asian operation through the sea stemmed the plans significantly. Infiltration by British agents, change in American attitude and stance, and the changing fortunes of the war meant the massive conspiracy for revolution within India never succeeded.[103]

Counter intelligence

British intelligence began to note and track outlines and nascent ideas of the conspiracy by as early as 1911.[104] Incidents like the Delhi-Lahore Conspiracy and the Komagata Maru incident had already alerted the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of the existence of a large-scale network and plans for pan-Indian militant unrest. Measures were taken which focussed on Bengal—the seat of the most intense revolutionary terrorism at the time—and on Punjab, which was uncovered as a strong and militant base in the wake of Komagata Maru.[105][106] Har Dayal's extant group was found to have strong links with Rash Behari Bose, and were "cleaned up" in the wake of the Delhi bomb case.[106]

In Asia

See also: Charles Tegart, Oren, Vincent Kraft, and Kirpal Singh

At the outbreak of the war, Punjab CID sent teams to Hong Kong to intercept and infiltrate the returning Ghadarites, who often made little effort to hide their plans and objectives.[105] These teams were successful in uncovering details of the full scale of the conspiracy, and in discovering Har Dayal's whereabouts. Immigrants returning to India were double checked against a list of revolutionaries.[107]

In Punjab, the CID, although aware of possible plans for unrest, was not successful in infiltrating the conspiracy for the mutiny until February 1915. A dedicated force was formed, headed by the Chief of Punjab CID, and including amongst its members Liaqat Hayat Khan (later head of Punjab CID himself). In February that year, the CID was successful in recruiting the services of Kirpal Singh to infiltrate the plan. Singh, who had a Ghadarite cousin serving in the 23rd Cavalry, was able to infiltrate the leadership, being assigned to work in his cousin's regiment. Singh was soon under suspicion of being a spy, but was able to pass on the information regarding the date and scale of the uprising to British Indian intelligence.[108] As the date for the mutiny approached, a desperate Rash Behari Bose brought forward the mutiny day to the evening of 19 February, which was discovered by Kirpal Singh on the very day. No attempts were made by the Ghadarites to restrain him, and he rushed to inform Liaqat Hayat Khan of the change of plans. Ordered back to his station to signal when the revolutionaries had assembled, Singh was detained by the would-be mutineers, but managed to escape under the cover of answering the call of nature.[108]

The role of German or Baltic-German double-agents, especially the agent named "Oren", was also important in infiltrating and preempting the plans for autumn rebellions in Bengal in 1915 and in as scuttling Bagha Jatin's plans in winter that year. Another source was the German double agent Vincent Kraft, a planter from Batavia, who passed information about arms shipments from Shanghai to British agents after being captured. Maps of the Bengal coast were found on Kraft when he was initially arrested and he volunteered the information that these were the intended landing sites for German arms.[109] Kraft later fled through Mexico to Japan where he was last known to be at the end of the war.[76] Later efforts by Mahendra Pratap's Provisional Government in Kabul were also compromised by Herambalal Gupta after he defected in 1918 and passed on information to Indian intelligence.[110]

In Europe and the Middle East

See also: John Wallinger, Indian Political Intelligence Office, and East Persia Cordon

By the time the war broke out, the Indian Political Intelligence Office, headed by John Wallinger, had expanded into Europe. In scale this office was larger than those operated by the British War Office, approaching the European intelligence network of the Secret Service Bureau. This network already had agents in Switzerland against possible German intrigues. After the outbreak of the war Wallinger, under the cover of an officer of the British General Headquarters, proceeded to France where he operated from Paris, working with the French political police, the Sûreté.[111] Among Wallinger's recruits in the network was Somerset Maugham, who was recruited in 1915 and used his cover as author to visit Geneva while avoiding Swiss interference.[112][113] Among other enterprises, the European intelligence network attempted to eliminate some of the Indian leaders in Europe. A British agent named Donald Gullick was dispatched to assassinate Virendranath Chattopadhyaya while the latter was on his way to Geneva to meet Mahendra Pratap to offer Kaiser Wilhelm II's invitation. It is said that Somerset Maugham based several of his stories on his first-hand experiences, modelling the character of John Ashenden after himself and Chandra Lal after Virendranath. The short story "Giulia Lazzari" is a blend of Gullick's attempts to assassinate Virendranath and Mata Hari's story. Winston Churchill reportedly advised Maugham to burn 14 other stories.[114][115]

The Czech revolutionary network in Europe also had a role in the uncovering of Bagha Jatin's plans. The network was in touch with the members in the United States, and may have also been aware of and involved in the uncovering of the earlier plots.[116][117][118] The American network, headed by E. V. Voska, was a counter-espionage network of nearly 80 members who, as Habsburg subjects, were presumed to be German supporters but were involved in spying on German and Austrian diplomats. Voska had begun working with Guy Gaunt, who headed Courtenay Bennett's intelligence network, at the outbreak of the war and on learning of the plot from the Czech European network, passed on the information to Gaunt and to Tomáš Masaryk who further passed on the information the American authorities.[117][119]

In the Middle East, British counter-intelligence was directed at preserving the loyalty of the Indian sepoy in the face of Turkish propaganda and the concept of The Caliph's Jihad, while a particularly significant effort was directed at intercepting the Kabul Mission. The East Persian Cordon was established in July 1915 in the Sistan province of Persia to prevent the Germans from crossing into Afghanistan, and to protect British supply caravans in Sarhad from the Damani, Reki and Kurdish Baluchi tribal raiders who may have been tempted by German gold. Among the commanders of the Sistan force was Reginald Dyer who led it between March and October 1916.[120][121][122]

In the United States

See also: W. C. Hopkinson

In the United States, the conspiracy was successfully infiltrated by British intelligence through Irish and Indian channels. The activities of Ghadar on the Pacific coast were noted by W. C. Hopkinson, who was born and raised in India and spoke fluent Hindi. Initially Hopkinson had been despatched from Calcutta to keep the Indian Police informed about the doings of Taraknath Das.[123] The Home department of the British Indian government had begun the task of actively tracking Indian seditionists on the East Coast as early as 1910. Francis Cunliffe Owen, the officer heading the Home Office agency in New York, had become thoroughly acquainted with George Freeman alias Fitzgerald and Myron Phelps, the famous New York advocate, as members of the Clan-na-Gael. Owens' efforts were successful in thwarting the SS Moraitis plan.[124] The Ghadar Party was incidentally established after Irish Republicans, sensing infiltration, encouraged formation of an exclusively Indian society.[33]

Following this, several approaches were adopted, including infiltration through an Indian national named Bela Singh who successfully set up a network of agents passing on information to Hopkinson, and through the use of the famous American Pinkerton's detective agency.[33][125] Bela Singh was later murdered in India in the 1930s. Hopkinson was assassinated in a Vancouver courthouse by a Ghadarite named Mewa Singh, in October, 1914.[126] Charles Lamb, an Irish double agent, is said to have passed on the majority of the information that compromised the Annie Larsen and ultimately helped the construction of the prosecution. An Indian operative, codenamed "C" and described most likely to have been the adventurous Chandra Kanta Chakravarty (later the chief prosecution witness in the trial), also passed on the details of the conspiracy to British and American intelligence.[127]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 27302
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Wed Mar 27, 2019 12:49 am

Part 2 of 2

Trials

The conspiracy led to several trials in India, most famous among them being the Lahore Conspiracy trial, which opened in Lahore in April 1915 in the aftermath of the failed February mutiny. Other trials included the Benares, Simla, Delhi, and Ferozepur conspiracy cases, and the trials of those arrested at Budge Budge.[128] At Lahore, a special tribunal was constituted under the Defence of India Act 1915 and a total of 291 conspirators were put on trial. Of these 42 were awarded the death sentence, 114 transported for life, and 93 awarded varying terms of imprisonment. Several of these were sent to the Cellular Jail in the Andaman Islands. Forty two defendants in the trial were acquitted. The Lahore trial directly linked the plans made in United States and the February mutiny plot. Following the conclusion of the trial, diplomatic effort to destroy the Indian revolutionary movement in the United States and to bring its members to trial increased considerably.[129][130][131]

In the United States, the Hindu–German Conspiracy Trial commenced in the District Court in San Francisco on 12 November 1917 following the uncovering of the Annie Larsen affair. One hundred and five people participated, including members of the Ghadar Party, the former German Consul-General and Vice-Consul, and other members of staff of the German consulate in San Francisco. The trial itself lasted from 20 November 1917 to 24 April 1918. The last day of the trial was notable for the sensational assassination of the chief accused, Ram Chandra, by a fellow defendant, Ram Singh, in a packed courtroom. Singh himself was immediately shot dead by a US Marshal. In May 1917, eight Indian nationalists of the Ghadar Party were indicted by a federal grand jury on a charge of conspiracy to form a military enterprise against Britain. In later years the proceedings were criticised as being a largely show trial designed to preempt any suggestions that the United States was joining an imperialist war.[11] The jury during the trial was carefully selected to exclude any Irish person with republican views or associations.[132] Strong public support in favour of the Indians, especially the revived Anglophobic sentiments following the colonial provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, allowed the Ghadarite movement to be revived despite British concerns.[133]

Impact

The conspiracy had a significant impact on Britain's policies, both within the empire and in international relations.[3][35][134][135][136][137] The outlines and plans for the nascent ideas of the conspiracy were noted and tracked by British intelligence as early as 1911.[104] Alarmed at the agile organisation, which repeatedly reformed in different parts of the country despite being subdued in others, the chief of Indian Intelligence Sir Charles Cleveland was forced to warn that the idea and attempts at pan-Indian revolutions were spreading through India "like some hidden fire".[104][138] A massive, concerted, and coordinated effort was required to subdue the movement. Attempts were made in 1914 to prevent the naturalisation of Tarak Nath Das as an American citizen, while successful pressure was applied to have Har Dayal interned.[136]

Political impact

See also: Defence of India Act 1915

The conspiracy, judged by the British Indian Government's own evaluation at the time, and those of several contemporary and modern historians, was an important event in the Indian independence movement and was one of the significant threats faced by the Raj in the second decade of the 20th century.[139][140]

In the scenario of the British war effort and the threat from the militant movement in India, it was a major factor for the passage of the Defence of India Act 1915. Among the strongest proponents of the act was Michael O'Dwyer, then the Lieutenant Governor of Punjab, and this was largely due to the Ghadarite movement.[141] It was also a factor that guided British political concessions and Whitehall's India Policy during and after World War I, including the passage of Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms which initiated the first round of political reform in the Indian subcontinent in 1917.[135][136][137] The events of the conspiracy during World War I, the presence of Pratap's Kabul mission in Afghanistan and its possible links to the Soviet Union, and a still-active revolutionary movement especially in Punjab and Bengal (as well as worsening civil unrest throughout India) led to the appointment of a Sedition committee in 1918 chaired by Sidney Rowlatt, an English judge. It was tasked to evaluate German and Bolshevik links to the militant movement in India, especially in Punjab and Bengal. On the recommendations of the committee, the Rowlatt Act, an extension of the Defence of India Act 1915, was enforced in India.[141][142][143][144][145]

The events that followed the passage of the Rowlatt Act in 1919 were also influenced by the conspiracy. At the time, British Indian Army troops were returning from the battlefields of Europe and Mesopotamia to an economic depression in India.[146][147] The attempts of mutiny in 1915 and the Lahore conspiracy trials were still in public attention. News of young Mohajirs who fought on behalf of the Turkish Caliphate and later fought in the ranks of the Red Army during the Russian Civil War was also beginning to reach India. The Russian Revolution had also cast its long shadow into India.[148] It was at this time that Mahatma Gandhi, until then relatively unknown in the Indian political scene, began emerging as a mass leader.

Ominously, in 1919, the Third Anglo-Afghan War began in the wake of Amir Habibullah's assassination and institution of Amanullah in a system blatantly influenced by the Kabul mission. In addition, in India, Gandhi's call for protest against the Rowlatt Act achieved an unprecedented response of furious unrest and protests. The situation especially in Punjab was deteriorating rapidly, with disruptions of rail, telegraph and communication systems. The movement was at its peak before the end of the first week of April, with some recording that "practically the whole of Lahore was on the streets, the immense crowd that passed through Anarkali was estimated to be around 20,000."[147] In Amritsar, over 5,000 people gathered at Jallianwala Bagh. This situation deteriorated perceptibly over the next few days. Michael O'Dwyer is said to have been of the firm belief that these were the early and ill-concealed signs of a conspiracy for a coordinated uprising around May, on the lines of the 1857 revolt, at a time when British troops would have withdrawn to the hills for the summer. The Amritsar massacre, as well as responses preceding and succeeding it, was the end result of a concerted plan of response from the Punjab administration to suppress such a conspiracy.[149] James Houssemayne Du Boulay is said to have ascribed a direct relationship between the fear of a Ghadarite uprising in the midst of an increasingly tensed situation in Punjab, and the British response that ended in the massacre.[150]

Lastly, British efforts to downplay and disguise the nature and impact of the revolutionary movement at this time also resulted in a policy designed to strengthen the moderate movement in India, which ultimately saw Gandhi's rise in the Indian movement.[4]

International relations

The conspiracy influenced several aspects of Great Britain's international relations, most of all Anglo-American relations during the war, as well as, to some extent, Anglo-Chinese relations. After the war, it was one of the issues that influenced Anglo-Japanese relations.

At the start of the war, the American government's refusal to check the Indian seditionist movement was a major concern for the British government. By 1916, a majority of the resources of the American department of the British Foreign Office were related to the Indian seditionist movement. Before the outbreak of the war, the political commitments of the Wilson Government, (especially of Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan who had eight years previously had authored "British Rule in India", a highly critical pamphlet, that was classified as seditionist by the Indian and Imperial governments), and the political fallouts of the perception of persecution of oppressed people by Britain prevented the then ambassador Cecil Spring Rice from pressing the issue diplomatically.[73][151][152] After Robert Lansing replaced Bryan as Secretary of State in 1916, Secretary of State for India Marquess of Crewe and Foreign Secretary Edward Grey forced Spring Rice to raise the issue and the evidences obtained in Lahore Conspiracy trial were presented to the American government in February. The first investigations were opened in America at this time with the raid of the Wall Street office of Wolf von Igel, resulting in seizures of papers that were later presented as evidence in the Hindu–German Conspiracy Trial.[152]

Wolf Walter Franz von Igel (11 January 1888 – 17 May 1970) was an accused spy in 1916. He was an aide to the spy Franz von Papen.[1][2]

In 1916 Wolf von Igel was indicted by Hudson Snowden Marshall, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York on charges of spying. Under his direction Dr. Walter T. Scheele, Captain von Kleist, Captain Wolpert of the Atlas Steamship Company, and Captain Rode of the Hamburg-American Line manufactured incendiary bombs to be used for sabotage. Igel claimed diplomatic immunity.

-- Wolf von Igel, by Wikipedia


However, a perceptibly slow and reluctant American investigation triggered an intense neutrality dispute through 1916, aggravated by belligerent preventive measures of the British Far-Eastern fleet on the high seas that threatened the sovereignty of American vessels. German and Turkish passengers were seized from the American vessel China by HMS Laurentic at the mouth of the Yangtze River. Several incidents followed, including the SS Henry S, which were defended by the British government on grounds that the seized ship planned to foment an armed uprising in India. These drew strong responses from the US government, prompting the US Atlantic Fleet to dispatch destroyers to the Pacific to protect the sovereignty of American vessels. Authorities in the Philippines were more cooperative, which assured Britain of knowledge of any plans against Hong Kong. The strained relations were relaxed in May 1916 when the Britain released the China prisoners and relaxed its aggressive policy seeking co-operation with the United States. However, diplomatic exchanges and relations did not improve before November that year.[151][152][153]

The conspiracy issue was ultimately addressed by William G. E. Wiseman, head of British intelligence in the United States, when he passed details of a bomb plot directly to the New York Police bypassing diplomatic channels. This led to the arrest of Chandra Kanta Chuckrevarty. As the links between Chuckervarty's papers and the Igel papers became apparent, investigations by federal authorities expanded to cover the entire conspiracy. Ultimately, the United States agreed to forward evidence so long as Britain did not seek admission of liability for breaches of neutrality. At a time that diplomatic relations with Germany were deteriorating, the British Foreign Office directed its embassy to co-operate with the investigations resolving the Anglo-American diplomatic disputes just as the United States entered the war.[152][152][153][153]

Through 1915–16, China and Indonesia were the major bases for the conspirators, and significant efforts were made by the British government to coax China into the war to attempt to control the German and Ghadar intrigues. This would also allow free purchase of arms from China for the Entente powers.[76] However, Yuan's proposals for bringing China into the war were against Japanese interests and gains from the war. This along with Japanese support for Sun Yat Sen and rebels in southern China laid the foundations for deterioration of Anglo-Japanese relations as early as 1916.[154] After the end of the Great War, Japan increasingly became a haven for radical Indian nationalists in exile, who were protected by patriotic Japanese societies. Notable among these were Rash Behari Bose, Tarak Nath Das, and A. M. Sahay. The protections offered to these nationalists, most notably by Toyama Mitsuru's Black Dragon Society,[155][156] effectively prevented British efforts to repatriate them and became a major policy concern.[156][157]

Ghadar Party and IIC

The IIC was formally disbanded in November 1918. Most of its members became closely associated with communism and the Soviet Union.[158] Bhupendranath Dutta and Virendranath Chattopadhyay alias Chatto arrived in Moscow in 1920. Narendranath Bhattacharya, under a new identity of M. N. Roy, was among the first Indian communists and made a memorable speech in the second congress of the Communist International that rejected Leninist views and foreshadowed Maoist peasant movements.[144] Chatto himself was in Berlin until 1932 as the general secretary of the League Against Imperialism and was able to convince Jawaharlal Nehru to affiliate the Indian National Congress with the league in 1927. He later fled Nazi Germany for the Soviet Union but disappeared in 1937 under Joseph Stalin's Great Purge.[159]

The Ghadar Party, suppressed during the war, revived itself in 1920 and openly declared its communist beliefs. Although sidelined in California, it remained relatively stronger in East Asia, where it allied itself with the Chinese Communist Party.[34][159]

World War II

Although the conspiracy failed during World War I, the movement being suppressed at the time and several of its key leaders hanged or incarcerated, several prominent Ghadarites also managed to flee India to Japan and Thailand. The concept of a revolutionary movement for independence also found a revival amongst later generation Indian leaders, most notably Subhas Chandra Bose who, towards the mid-1930s, began calling for a more radical approach towards colonial domination. During World War II, several of these leaders were instrumental in seeking Axis support to revive such a concept.[160][161] Bose himself, from the very beginning of World War II, actively evaluated the concept of revolutionary movement against the Raj, interacting with Japan and subsequently escaping to Germany to raise an Indian armed force, the Indische Legion, to fight in India against Britain.[162] He later returned to Southeast Asia to take charge of the Indian National Army which was formed following the labour of exiled nationalists, efforts from within Japan to revive a similar concept, and the direction and leadership of people like Mohan Singh, Giani Pritam Singh, and Rash Behari Bose. The most famous of these saw the formation of the Indian Independence League, the Indian National Army and ultimately the Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind in Southeast Asia.[163][164]

Commemoration

Image
The 1915 Singapore Mutiny memorial tablet at the entrance of the Victoria Memorial Hall, Singapore

The Ghadar Memorial Hall in San Francisco honours members of the party who were hanged following the Lahore conspiracy trial,[165] and the Ghadar Party Memorial Hall in Jalandhar, Punjab commemorates the Ghadarites who were involved in the conspiracy. Several of those executed during the conspiracy are today honoured in India. Kartar Singh is honoured with a memorial at his birthplace of the Village of Sarabha. The Ayurvedic Medicine College in Ludhiana is also named in his honour.[166] The Indian government has produced stamps honouring several of those involved in the conspiracy, including Har Dayal, Bhai Paramanand, and Rash Behari Bose.[167] Several other revolutionaries are also honoured through India and the Indian American population. A memorial plaque commemorating the Komagata Maru was unveiled by Jawaharlal Nehru at Budge Budge in Calcutta in 1954, while a second plaque was unveiled in 1984 at Gateway Pacific, Vancouver by the Canadian government. A heritage foundation to commemorate the passengers from the Komagata Maru excluded from Canada was established in 2005.[168] In Singapore, two memorial tablets at the entrance of the Victoria Memorial Hall and four plaques in St Andrew's Cathedral commemorate the British soldiers and civilians killed during the Singapore Mutiny.[169] In Ireland, a memorial at the Glasnevin Cemetery in Dublin commemorates the dead from the Jalandhar mutiny of the Connaught Rangers.[170] The Southern Asian Institute of Columbia University today runs the Taraknath Das foundation to support work relating to India.[171] Famous awardees include R. K. Narayan, Robert Goheen, Philip Talbot, Anita Desai and SAKHI and Joseph Elder.

Note on the name

The conspiracy is known under several different names, including the 'Hindu Conspiracy', the 'Indo-German Conspiracy', the 'Ghadar conspiracy' (or 'Ghadr conspiracy'), or the 'German plot'.[32][172][173][174][175] The term Hindu–German Conspiracy is closely associated with the uncovering of the Annie Larsen plot in the United States, and the ensuing trial of Indian nationalists and the staff of the German Consulate of San Francisco for violating American neutrality. The trial itself was called the Hindu–German Conspiracy Trial, and the conspiracy was reported in the media (and later studied by several historians) as Hindu–German Conspiracy.[132] However, the conspiracy involved not only Hindus and Germans, but also substantial numbers of Muslims and Punjabi Sikhs, and strong Irish support that pre-dated German and Turkish involvement. The term Hindu (or Hindoo) was used commonly in opprobrium in America to identify Indians regardless of religion. Likewise, conspiracy was also a term with negative connotations. The term Hindu Conspiracy was used by the government to actively discredit the Indian revolutionaries at a time the United States was about to join the war against Germany.[132][176][177]

The term 'Ghadar Conspiracy' may refer more specifically to the mutiny planned for February 1915 in India, while the term 'German plot' or 'Christmas Day Plot' may refer more specifically to the plans for shipping arms to Jatin Mukherjee in Autumn 1915. The term Indo-German conspiracy is also commonly used to refer to later plans in Southeast Asia and to the mission to Kabul which remained the remnant of the conspiracy at the end of the war. All of these were parts of the larger conspiracy. Most scholars reviewing the American aspect use the name Hindu–German Conspiracy, the Hindu-Conspiracy or the Ghadar Conspiracy, while most reviewing the conspiracy over its entire span from Southeast Asia through Europe to the United States more often use the term Indo-German conspiracy.[175][178] In British-India, the Rowlatt committee set up investigate the events referred to them as "The Seditious conspiracy".

See also

• Horst von der Goltz

Further reading

• Tadhg Foley (Editor), Maureen O'Connor (Editor), Ireland and India - Colonies, Culture and Empire, Irish Academic Press, ISBN 9780716528371
Preceded by
India House, Anushilan samiti, Jugantar
Revolutionary movement for Indian independence
Succeeded by
Gandhian movement, Hindustan Socialist Republican Army, Jugantar, Indian National Army

Notes and references

Notes


1. Plowman 2003, p. 84
2. Hoover 1985, p. 252
3. Brown 1948, p. 300
4. Popplewell 1995, p. 4
5. Desai 2005, p. 30
6. Desai 2005, p. 43
7. Desai 2005, p. 93
8. Desai 2005, p. 125
9. Desai 2005, p. 154
10. Yadav 1992, p. 6
11. Fraser 1977, p. 257
12. Bose & Jalal 1998, p. 117
13. Dutta & Desai 2003, p. 135
14. Bhatt 2001, p. 83
15. Gupta 1997, p. 12
16. Popplewell 1995, p. 201
17. Strachan 2001, p. 795
18. Terrorism in Bengal, Compiled and Edited by A.K. Samanta, Government of West Bengal, 1995, Vol. II, p625.
19. Qureshi 1999, p. 78
20. "Champak-Chatto" And the Berlin Committee". Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
21. Strachan 2001, p. 794
22. Yadav 1992, p. 8
23. Hopkirk 1997, p. 44
24. Owen 2007, p. 65
25. Owen 2007, p. 66
26. Chirol 2006, p. 148
27. von Pochammer 2005, p. 435
28. Popplewell 1995, p. 132
29. Fischer-Tinē 2007, p. 333
30. Fischer-Tinē 2007, p. 334
31. Fischer-Tinē 2007, p. 335
32. Plowman 2003, p. 82
33. Popplewell 1995, p. 148
34. Deepak 1999, p. 441
35. Sarkar 1983, p. 146
36. Deepak 1999, p. 439
37. Hoover 1985, p. 251
38. Strachan 2001, p. 798
39. Gupta 1997, p. 11
40. Puri 1980, p. 60
41. Hopkirk 2001, p. 96
42. Ward 2002, pp. 79–96
43. Strachan 2001, p. 796
44. Strachan 2001, p. 793
45. Deepak 1999, p. 442
46. Sarkar 1983, p. 148
47. Brown 1948, p. 303
48. Plowman 2003, p. 87
49. Brown 1948, p. 301
50. Popplewell 1995, p. 276
51. Brown 1948, p. 306
52. Brown 1948, p. 307
53. Popplewell 1995, p. 224
54. Popplewell 1995, p. 225
55. Fraser 1977, p. 261
56. Plowman 2003, p. 90
57. Gupta 1997, p. 3
58. Hoover 1985, p. 255
59. Wilma D (18 May 2006). "U.S. Customs at Grays Harbor seizes the schooner Annie Larsen loaded with arms and ammunition on June 29, 1915". HistoryLink.org. Retrieved 22 September 2007.
60. Hoover 1985, p. 256
61. Brown 1948, p. 304
62. Stafford, D. "Men of Secrets. Roosevelt and Churchill". New York Times. Retrieved 24 October 2007.
63. Myonihan, D.P. "Report of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy. Senate Document 105-2". Fas.org. Retrieved 24 October 2007.
64. Chhabra 2005, p. 597
65. Deepak 1999, p. 443
66. Herbert 2003, p. 223
67. Sareen 1995, p. 14,15
68. Kuwajima 1988, p. 23
69. Farwell 1992, p. 244
70. Corr 1975, p. 15
71. Strachan 2001, p. 797
72. Fraser 1977, p. 263
73. Strachan 2001, p. 800
74. Hopkirk 2001, p. 189
75. Fraser 1977, p. 264
76. Strachan 2001, p. 802
77. Hopkirk 2001, p. 179
78. Majumdar 1971, p. 382
79. Fraser 1977, p. 266
80. Fraser 1977, p. 267
81. Hopkirk 2001, p. 180
82. Fraser 1977, p. 265
83. Hughes 2002, p. 453
84. Hopkirk 2001, p. 98
85. Hopkirk 2001, pp. 136–140
86. Jalal 2007, p. 105
87. Reetz 2007, p. 142
88. Hughes 2002, p. 466
89. Hopkirk 2001, p. 160
90. Sims-Williams 1980, p. 120
91. Hughes 2002, p. 472
92. Andreyev 2003, p. 95
93. Andreyev 2003, p. 87
94. Andreyev 2003, p. 96
95. McKale 1998, p. 127
96. Yadav 1992, p. 35
97. Yadav 1992, p. 36
98. Qureshi 1999, p. 79
99. Sykes 1921, p. 101
100. Herbert 2003
101. Singh, Jaspal. "History of the Ghadar Movement". panjab.org.uk. Retrieved 31 October 2007.
102. Asghar, S.B (12 June 2005). "A famous uprising". http://www.dawn.com. Retrieved 2 November 2007.
103. Strachan 2001, p. 805
104. Hopkirk 2001, p. 41
105. Popplewell 1995, p. 168
106. Popplewell 1995, p. 200
107. Popplewell 1995, p. 194
108. Popplewell 1995, p. 173
109. Hopkirk 2002, p. 182
110. Strachan 2001, p. 788
111. Popplewell 1995, p. 216,217
112. Popplewell 1995, p. 230
113. Woods 2007, p. 55
114. Popplewell 1995, p. 234
115. Barooah 2004
116. Voska & Irwin 1940, p. 98,108,120,122,123
117. Masaryk 1970, p. 50,221,242
118. Bose 1971, p. 233,233
119. Popplewell 1995, p. 237
120. Collett 2006, p. 144
121. Popplewell 1995, p. 182,183,187
122. Seidt 2001, p. 4
123. "Echoes of Freedom: South Asian pioneers in California 1899–1965". UC, Berkeley, Bancroft Library. Retrieved 11 November 2007.
124. Popplewell 1995, p. 147
125. Radhan 2001, p. 259
126. Radhan 2001, p. 261
127. Plowman 2003, p. 93
128. Chhabra 2005, p. 598
129. Talbot 2000, p. 124
130. "History of Andaman Cellular Jail". Andaman Cellular Jail heritage committee. Archived from the originalon 9 February 2010. Retrieved 8 December 2007.
131. Khosla, K (23 June 2002). "Ghadr revisited". The Tribune. Chandigarh. Retrieved 8 December 2007.
132. Jensen 1979, p. 65
133. Dignan 1971, p. 75
134. Dignan 1971, p. 57
135. Majumdar 1971, p. xix
136. Dignan 1971, p. 60
137. Cole 2001, p. 572
138. Hopkirk 1997, p. 43
139. Sinha 1971, p. 153
140. Ker 1917
141. Popplewell 1995, p. 175
142. Lovett 1920, pp. 94, 187–191
143. Sarkar 1921, p. 137
144. Tinker 1968, p. 92,93
145. Fisher 1972, p. 129
146. Sarkar 1983, pp. 169–172,176
147. Swami P (1 November 1997). "Jallianwala Bagh revisited". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 28 November 2007. Retrieved 7 October2007.
148. Sarkar 1983, p. 177
149. Cell 2002, p. 67
150. Brown 1973, p. 523
151. Fraser 1977, p. 260
152. Strachan 2001, p. 804
153. Dignan 1971
154. Strachan 2001, p. 803
155. Tagore 1997, p. 486
156. Brown 1986, p. 421
157. Dignan 1983
158. Strachan 2001, p. 815
159. Fraser 1977, p. 269
160. Lebra 1977, p. 23
161. Lebra 1977, p. 24
162. Thomson M (23 September 2004). "Hitler's secret Indian Army". bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2 September 2007.
163. Fay 1993, p. 90
164. "Historical Journey of the Indian National Army". National Archives of Singapore. 2003. Retrieved 7 July 2007.
165. Radhan 2002, p. 203
166. "Pioneer Asian Indian immigration to the Pacific coast". Sikhpioneers.org. Archived from the original on 17 December 2007. Retrieved 9 December2007.
167. "Bhai Paramanand". IndianPost,Adarsh Mumbai News and Feature Agency. Retrieved 9 December2007.
168. "Komagata Maru Walk 2006". Komagata Maru Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on 14 December 2007. Retrieved 9 December2007.
169. "1915 Indian (Singapore) Mutiny". Singapore Infopedia. Archived from the original on 12 June 2007. Retrieved 14 June 2007.
170. Wilkinson & Ashley 1993, p. 48
171. "The Taraknath Das Foundation". Columbia University. Archived from the original on 27 March 2008. Retrieved 21 May 2008.
172. Jensen 1979, p. 83
173. Plowman 2003, p. Footnote 2
174. Isemonger & Slattery 1919
175. "Bagha Jatin". http://www.whereinthecity.com. Retrieved 10 December 2007.
176. Jensen 1979, p. 67
177. Strother 2004, p. 308
178. "Dr. Matt Plowman to have conference paper published". Waldorf College. 14 April 2005. Retrieved 10 December2007.[permanent dead link]

References

• Andreyev, Alexandre (2003), Soviet Russia and Tibet: The Debacle of Secret Diplomacy, 1918-1930s, BRILL, ISBN 90-04-12952-9
• Ansari, K. H. (1986), "Pan-Islam and the Making of the Early Indian Muslim Socialist.", Modern Asian Studies, Cambridge University Press, 20 (3), pp. 509–537, doi:10.1017/s0026749x00007848.
• Barooah, N. K. (2004), Chatto: The Life and Times of an Anti-Imperialist in Europe, Oxford University Press, USA, ISBN 0-19-566547-3
• Bhatt, Chetan (2001), Hindu Nationalism: Origins, Ideologies and Modern Myths, Berg Publishers, ISBN 1-85973-348-4
• Bose, A. C. (1971), Indian Revolutionaries Abroad, 1905–1927, Patna: Bharati Bhawan, ISBN 81-7211-123-1
• Bose, Purnima; Lyons, Laura (1999), Dyer Consequences: The Trope of Amritsar, Ireland, and the Lessons of the "Minimum" Force Debate.boundary 2, Vol. 26, No. 2. (Summer, 1999), pp. 199–229, Duke University Press, ISSN 0190-3659.
• Bose, Sugata; Jalal, Ayesha (1998), Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-16952-6.
• Brown, Emily (May 1973), "(in Book Reviews; South Asia)", The Journal of Asian Studies, University of British Columbia, 32 (3), pp. 522–523, doi:10.2307/2052702, ISSN 0030-851X.
• Brown, Emily (1986), "(in Book Reviews; South Asia)", The Journal of Asian Studies, University of British Columbia., 45 (2), doi:10.2307/2055882, ISSN 0030-851X.
• Brown, Giles (Aug 1948), "The Hindu Conspiracy, 1914–1917.", The Pacific Historical Review, University of California Press, 17 (3): 299–310, doi:10.2307/3634258, ISSN 0030-8684.
• Carr, Cecil T.; et al. (1938), ""British Isles" in Review of Legislation, 1936; British Empire.", Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, 3rd, Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 20 (2): 1–25, ISSN 1479-5949.
• Cell, John W. (2002), Hailey: A Study in British Imperialism, 1872–1969, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-52117-3.
• Chhabra, G. S. (2005), Advance Study In The History Of Modern India, 2: 1803–1920, Lotus Press, ISBN 81-89093-07-X.
• Chirol, Valentine (2006), Indian Unrest, Adamant Media Corporation, ISBN 0-543-94122-1.
• Cole, Howard; et al. (2001), Labour and Radical Politics 1762–1937, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-26576-2.
• Collett, Nigel (2006), The Butcher of Amritsar: General Reginald Dyer, Continuum International Publishing Group, ISBN 1-85285-575-4.
• Corr, Gerald H. (1975), The War of the Springing Tigers:, Osprey, ISBN 0-85045-069-1.
• Deepak, B. R. (1999), "Revolutionary Activities of the Ghadar Party in China.", China Report, Sage Publications, 35; 439, ISSN 0009-4455.
• Desai, A. R. (2005), Social Background of Indian Nationalism, Popular Prakashan, ISBN 81-7154-667-6.
• Dignan, Don (February 1971), "The Hindu Conspiracy in Anglo-American Relations during World War I", The Pacific Historical Review, University of California Press, 40 (1): 57–76, doi:10.2307/3637829, ISSN 0030-8684.
• Dignan, Don (1983), The Indian revolutionary problem in British Diplomacy, 1914–1919, New Delhi: Allied Publishers.
• Dutta, Krishna; Desai, Anita (2003), Calcutta: A Cultural and Literary History, Signal Books, ISBN 1-902669-59-2
• Fay, Peter W. (1993), The Forgotten Army: India's Armed Struggle for Independence, 1942–1945, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, ISBN 0-472-08342-2
• Farwell, Bryon (1992), Armies of the Raj: From the Great Indian Mutiny to Independence, 1858–1947, W. W. Norton & Company, ISBN 0-393-30802-2
• Fischer-Tinē, Harald (November 2007), "Indian Nationalism and the 'world forces': Transnational and diasporic dimensions of the Indian freedom movement on the eve of the First World War", Journal of Global History, Cambridge University Press, 2 (3): 325–344, doi:10.1017/S1740022807002318, ISSN 1740-0228
• Fisher, Margaret W. (Spring 1972), "Essays on Gandhian Politics. the Rowlatt Satyagraha of 1919 (in Book Reviews).", Pacific Affairs, University of British Columbia, 45 (1): 128–129, doi:10.2307/2755297, ISSN 0030-851X
• Fraser, Thomas G. (April 1977), "Germany and Indian Revolution, 1914–18", Journal of Contemporary History, Sage Publications, 12(2): 255–272, doi:10.1177/002200947701200203, ISSN 0022-0094
• Gupta, Amit K. (September–October 1997), "Defying Death: Nationalist Revolutionism in India, 1897–1938.", Social Scientist, 25(9/10): 3–27, doi:10.2307/3517678, ISSN 0970-0293
• Herbert, Edwin (2003), Small Wars and Skirmishes 1902–1918: Early Twentieth-century Colonial Campaigns in Africa, Asia and the Americas, Nottingham: Foundry Books Publications, ISBN 1-901543-05-6
• Hoover, Karl (May 1985), "The Hindu Conspiracy in California, 1913–1918.", German Studies Review, German Studies Association, 8 (2), pp. 245–261, doi:10.2307/1428642, ISSN 0149-7952
• Hopkirk, Peter (1997), Like Hidden Fire: The Plot to Bring Down the British Empire, Kodansha Globe, ISBN 1-56836-127-0
• Hopkirk, Peter (2001), On Secret Service East of Constantinople, Oxford Paperbacks, ISBN 0-19-280230-5
• Hughes, Thomas L. (October 2002), "The German Mission to Afghanistan, 1915–1916", German Studies Review, German Studies Association, 25 (3): 447–476, doi:10.2307/1432596, ISSN 0149-7952
• Isemonger, F. C.; Slattery, J (1919), An Account of the Ghadr Conspiracy, 1913–1915, Lahore: India Government Printing Office-Punjab
• Jalal, Ayesha (2007), "Striking a just balance: Maulana Azad as a theorist of trans-national jihad", Modern Intellectual History, Cambridge University Press, 4 (1): 95–107, doi:10.1017/S1479244306001065, ISSN 1479-2443
• Jensen, Joan M. (February 1979), "The "Hindu Conspiracy": A Reassessment", The Pacific Historical Review, University of California Press, 48 (1), pp. 65–83, doi:10.2307/3638938, ISSN 0030-8684
• Kenny, Kevin (2006), Ireland and the British Empire, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-925184-3
• Ker, J. C. (1917), Political Trouble in India 1907–1917, Calcutta.: Superintendent Government Printing, India, 1917. Republished 1973 by Delhi, Oriental Publishers, OCLC 1208166
• Kuwajima, Sho (1988), "First World War and Asia — Indian Mutiny in Singapore (1915)", Journal of Osaka University of Foreign Studies, Osaka University of Foreign Studies, 69, pp. 23–48, ISSN 0472-1411
• Lebra, Joyce C. (1977), Japanese trained armies in South-East Asia, New York: Columbia University Press, ISBN 0-231-03995-6
• Lovett, Sir Verney (1920), A History of the Indian Nationalist Movement, New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company, ISBN 81-7536-249-9
• Majumdar, Ramesh C. (1971), History of the Freedom Movement in India, II, Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay, ISBN 81-7102-099-2
• Masaryk, T. (1970), Making of a State, Howard Fertig, ISBN 0-685-09575-4
• McKale, Donald M (1998), War by Revolution: Germany and Great Britain in the Middle East in the Era of World War I, Kent State University Press, ISBN 0-87338-602-7
• Owen, N. (2007), The British Left and India, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-923301-2
• Plowman, Matthew (2003), Irish Republicans and the Indo-German Conspiracy of World War I. New Hibernia Review 7.3, Center for Irish Studies at the University of St. Thomas, pp. 81–105, ISSN 1092-3977
• Popplewell, Richard J. (1995), Intelligence and Imperial Defence: British Intelligence and the Defence of the Indian Empire 1904–1924, Routledge, ISBN 0-7146-4580-X
• Puri, Harish K. (September–October 1980), "Revolutionary Organization: A Study of the Ghadar Movement", Social Scientist, 9(2/3): 53–66, doi:10.2307/3516925, ISSN 0970-0293
• Qureshi, M. Naeem (1999), Pan-Islam in British Indian Politics: A Study of the Khilafat Movement, 1918–1924, Brill Academic publishers, ISBN 90-04-11371-1.
• Radhan, O. P. (2002), Encyclopaedia of Political Parties, Anmol Publications Pvt ltd, ISBN 81-7488-865-9.
• Reetz, Dietrich (2007), "The Deoband Universe: What Makes a Transcultural and Transnational Educational Movement of Islam?.", Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, Duke University Press, 27 (1), pp. 139–159, doi:10.1215/1089201x-2006-049, ISSN 1089-201X
• Sareen, Tilak R. (1995), Secret Documents On Singapore Mutiny 1915, New Delhi: Mounto Publishing House, ISBN 81-7451-009-5
• Sarkar, B. K. (March 1921), Political Science Quarterly, 36 (1), The Academy of Political Science, pp. 136–138, ISSN 0032-3195
• Sarkar, Sumit (1983), Modern India, 1885–1947, Delhi: Macmillan, ISBN 978-0-333-90425-1
• Seidt, Hans-Ulrich (February 2001), "From Palestine to the Caucasus-Oskar Niedermayer and Germany's Middle Eastern Strategy in 1918.German Studies Review", German Studies Review, German Studies Association, 24 (1): 1–18, doi:10.2307/1433153, ISSN 0149-7952
• Sims-Williams, Ursula (1980), "The Afghan Newspaper Siraj al-Akhbar.", Bulletin (British Society for Middle Eastern Studies), London: Taylor & Francis, 7 (2), pp. 118–122, ISSN 0305-6139
• Sinha, P. B. (November 1971), "A New Source for the History of the Revolutionary Movement in India, 1907– 1917.The Journal of Asian Studies", The Journal of Asian Studies, Association for Asian Studies, 31 (1): 151–156, doi:10.2307/2053060, ISSN 0021-9118
• Strachan, Hew (2001), The First World War, I: To Arms, Oxford University Press USA, ISBN 0-19-926191-1
• Strother, French (2004), Fighting germany's spies, Kessinger Publishing, ISBN 1-4179-3169-8
• Sykes, Peter (August 1921), "South Persia and the Great War. The Geographical Journal", The Geographical Journal, Blackwell publishing on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society, 58 (2): 101–116, doi:10.2307/1781457, ISSN 0016-7398
• Tagore, Rabindranath (1997), Selected Letters of Rabindranath Tagore, University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, ISBN 0-521-59018-3
• Tai-Yong, Tan (April 2000), "An Imperial Home-Front: Punjab and the First World War. The Journal of Military History", The Journal of Military History, Society for Military History, 64 (2): 371–410, doi:10.2307/120244, ISSN 0899-3718
• Talbot, Ian (2000), India and Pakistan, Oxford University Press USA., ISBN 0-340-70632-5
• Tinker, Hugh (October 1968), India in the First World War and after. Journal of Contemporary History, 1918–19: From War to Peace, 3(4), Sage Publications, pp. 89–107, ISSN 0022-0094
• von Pochhammer, Wilhelm (2005), India's Road to Nationhood (2nd ed.), Allied Publishers., ISBN 81-7764-715-6
• Voska, E. V.; Irwin, W. (1940), Spy and Counterspy, New York: Doubleday, Doran & Co
• Ward, W. P. (2002), White Canada Forever: Popular Attitudes and Public Policy Toward Orientals in British Columbia (McGill-Queen's Studies in Ethnic History) (3rd ed.), McGill-Queen's University Press, ISBN 0-7735-2322-7
• Wilkinson, P.; Ashley, J. B. (1993), Gubbins and SOE, Leo Cooper, ISBN 0-85052-556-X
• Woods, B. F. (2007), Neutral Ground: A Political History of Espionage Fiction, Algora Publishing, ISBN 0-87586-535-6
• Yadav, B. D. (1992), M. P. T. Acharya, Reminiscences of an Indian Revolutionary, Anmol Publications Pvt ltd, ISBN 81-7041-470-9
External links[edit]
• "In the Spirit of Ghadar". The Tribune, Chandigarh
• Kim, Hyung-Chan, Dictionary of Asian American History, New York: Greenwood Press,1986.
• India rising a Berlin plot. New York Times archives.
• The Ghadr Rebellion by Khushwant Singh, sourced from The Illustrated Weekly of India 26 February 1961, pp. 34–35; 5 March 1961, p. 45; and 12 March 1961, p. 41.
• The Hindustan Ghadar Collection, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley
• Hindu-German Conspiracy Trial on South Asian American Digital Archive (SAADA)
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 27302
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Wed Mar 27, 2019 2:34 am

Part 1 of 2

3: Indian Revolutionary Movement in USA and Canada The Pan-Aryan Association
Excerpt from "Indian Revolutionary Movement Abroad" (1905-1921), by Tilak Raj Sareen, M.A., Ph.D.
1979

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


In their efforts to extend the scope of their activities from the Continent to the United States of America the Indian revolutionaries in the initial stages had to overcome certain handicaps arising from the absence of a clear appreciation of India’s colonial situation. Though not downright hostile, the American attitude remained for a time indifferent towards the Indian political problem, an attitude which flowed more from a lack of communication than from anything else.

But once the aims and aspirations of Indians were made known through the agency of the Irish nationalists, the position started changing. There was then no looking back. Despite the anti-Asiatic feelings engendered by the rush of Indian immigrants to the Pacific Coast, the American people began to take keen interest in the activities of the Indian revolutionaries. Some of them even came into the open and joined the struggle on account perhaps of their own anti-colonial tradition, and of the historic suspicion of Great Britain as an exploiter of subject people.

The Indian immigrants, on the other hand, became a positive source of strength in terms of money and man power. On the Pacific Coast and Canada the Indian revolutionaries established within a few years a strong organisation, ready to challenge the might of the British in India. The US official response, no doubt, remained in favour of the British. Even so, the British Foreign Office had a tough time during the war to convince the US Government about the urgency of putting a check on the activities of the Indian revolutionaries. Its repeated representations had their effect, but by the time the US Government proceeded to fall in line with British suggestions by convicting Indians, an atmosphere of goodwill and understanding had already developed between the Indian revolutionaries and the American people, an understanding which was not to subside.

Before the arrival of the Indian immigrants the contact between the Indians and Americans had been nominal and sporadic. The earliest link was established by the Americans through trade with India towards the end of the 18th century. The merchantmen were followed by the American Christian missionaries, who played a prominent role in the development of American ties with India. On the Indian side the interest in America began with the coming of Madame Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott who founded the Theosophical Society in India in the early seventies 1 of the I9th century. Their visit to India gave a fresh impetus to the study of Hinduism and Indian culture in America. 2

The relationship between Americans and Indians holding advanced views was drawn closer by the visits of Vivekananda and other religious leaders to America.

The appearance of Vivekananda at the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893, created a new awareness about India. The voice of Swami Vivekananda brought to the Americans a realisation of the unsurpassed religious and philosophical legacy of India. It also began to awaken his own compatriots from the lethargy inculcated by foreign domination. 3 The visit also resulted in stimulating American interest in India and led to the welcome being extended (at least for some time) to Indian students as visitors to America. 4 The educational work carried on by the American missionaries in India also prepared the way for sowing of good seeds in a ready soil, the fruits of which turned the eyes of the educated Indians towards this new world. 5

When political unrest in India gained momentum after the partition of Bengal and the Swadeshi movement, interest in American political institutions received a fresh impetus and many Indian young men went to America, some at their own expense and others on money collected from those who held advanced views. They went to America apparently for scientific and technical education, but to quote the Director of Criminal Intelligence, “they had gone there to learn the manufacture of arms and explosives and to make a special study of the republican institutions and of the history of the struggle which enabled the Americans to throw off the British yoke.” 6 Historically and ideologically the Indian students were, no doubt, attracted to America for its revolutionary example in wresting independence.

This became clear with the publication of an article by H. S. Chima, under the heading “Why India sends students to America.” The main purpose, he wrote, of the Indian students in America, was to get ideal lessons in an ideal country, so that we may deserve the title educated, in the fullest and practical sense of the word. We come here to imbibe free thoughts from free people and teach the same when we go back to our country and to get rid of the tyranny of the rule of the universal oppressor (the British). 7

After their coming to the United States, most of the students became members of the Clan Na Gael and other Irish societies based in America. At the same time Shyamaji began propaganda for the Home Rule movement in the United States with the assistance of his Irish friends. Articles began to appear in the Gaelic American, an organ of the Irish nationalists, with the object of acquainting the American people with the state of affairs in India. The same paper gave a good deal of publicity to the ideas of Shyamaji and forcefully reminded the Indian people that in case they desired to prevent their further decline and demoralisation at the hands of the British, and if they also hoped to revive their former greatness, then they should struggle for attaining Home Rule on the lines laid down by Shyamaji. 8

The paper in a subsequent leader referred to the close cooperation which existed between the Indian and the Irish nationalists and their determination to carry on their war in alliance with Indian sentiments and sympathy against the common enemy. The writer further pointed out that so far as the influence of Gaelic American extends, it will be its duty to dissuade Irishmen anywhere from entering the services of the British Government in any capacity in India. The interests of all the countries held in subjection by the British are identical, for that reason, therefore, we hold out the hand of fellowship to the Indian people and promise them all assistance it is in our power to afford. India’s cause is also Ireland’s cause, they must march along the same road, and on the same lines to ultimate victory. 9

In subsequent issues also, the paper made a point of linking Ireland and India together as two downtrodden countries struggling for freedom and
advocated the Russian methods to achieve it.
The Government of India regarded the utterances of the Gaelic American as outrageous and a direct incitement to Indians to violence and intrigue to overthrow British rule. The Director of Criminal Intelligence recommended prohibition on the entry of the Gaelic American in India under the Sea Customs Act, but the Government declined to accept the suggestion as it would give “undesirable publicity to its writings.” 10

In another article, the Gaelic American stressed the importance as well as the necessity of the fight for the freedom of Ireland to be carried on in alliance with all those who were struggling against British oppression and decided to adopt the policy of concurrent action with the national movement then in progress in India. 10

Besides propaganda through the help of his Irish friends, Shyamaji sent his emissaries on a lecturing tour of the United States to acquaint the American people with the state of affairs in India. Dr Narayan Krishna, a graduate of Cambridge, was the first to go in 1906 to the United States with the object of informing the people of that country about the conditions of the people of India. 11

Taking their cue from Shyamaji, a few other Indians in the United States with the help of the Irish nationalists formed the Pan-Aryan Association in October 1906. The founder members were Barkatullah and S.L. Joshi; the former became its President and the latter Secretary. The association had the active support of George Freeman, John Davey and other Irish revolutionaries in the US. The object of the association was to bring India and America into closer contact and to be helpful to the students from India, to educate and send them back so that they could spread liberal ideas throughout the country. 12

With the cooperation of the Irish nationalists, the association started their anti-British propaganda and in a meeting held in New York resolutions were passed repudiating the right of any foreigner to dictate the future of the Indian people and urged their countrymen to depend upon themselves alone and especially on boycott and swadeshi. The meeting also condemned the deportation of Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh. 13

Besides the anti-British propaganda, the association advocated the unity between Hindus and Muhammedans and the formation of a league between the peoples of Ireland and India for the overthrow of British rule. 14

The propaganda had its impact on the educated Americans. They started sympathising to some extent with the Indian national movement and some of them came into the open and formed societies to help Indian students and to give encouragement to their activities. The earliest society formed purely by the Americans was Indo-American National Association in September 1907. The founder was Myron H. Phelps, a Broadway (New York) lawyer. Many professors of American universities were associated with the Phelp’s movement which later functioned under the name of Society for the Advancement of India. The main objects of this society were (1) to assist Indian students in America, (2) to present Indian questions to the American press, (3) to secure facilities for Indians visiting America and for Americans visiting India, and (4) to convey the sympathy of Americans to the people of India and to help secure for them from the British Government a measure of self-rule. 15

Phelps came before the Indian public by contributing a series of letters to the Indian press in which he exposed the serious defects of the British administrative system and expressed the sympathy of the Americans with the Indian people. He also drew a parallel between the history of America, while still a dependency of Great Britain and that of India pointing out that in America boycott of British goods preceded the revolution and that Swadeshi was an American version of the boycott movement in the Indian situation, 16 which he anticipated would lead towards the overthrow of the British Government in India.

In the opinion of Kesari, Phelps' letters were a striking reply to the nervous moderate leaders who had been trying to frighten the nation into abandoning the boycott agitation and to sing the praises of their discredited mendicant policy. It advocated the adoption of Phelps’ advice and suggested that the boycott movement should be made more stringent. 17

Besides Phelps, other prominent Americans like W.S. Bryan and Andrew Carnegie also voiced the aspirations of new India and strongly criticised Britain for her policy of self-aggrandizement, and exploitation of the Indian people. 18

Lieut. W. S. Bryan company I, 27th Illinois volunteers, has had a sword and navy revolver presented to him, the former by the citizens of Kewanee, and the latter by Mrs. Lieut. Dow and Mrs. Lieut. Col. Burwell of Princeton. Lieut. Bryan is a Democrat of the fighting, traitor-hating kind.

-- Chicago Tribune, 3/9/1863


When it comes to activities by individual members, at first sight the pattern is confusing and superficially inconsistent. Let's give some examples:

Andrew Carnegie profited from war through his vast steel holdings, but under the guidance of member Daniel Coit Gilman, Carnegie was also an enthusiastic president and financial backer of the American Peace Society. This is seemingly inconsistent. Could Carnegie be for war and peace at the same time?
• The League to Enforce the Peace, founded by members William H. Taft and Theodore Marburg, was promoting peace, yet active in urging U.S. participation in World War One. How could the League be for war and peace at the same time?
• In the 1920s, W. Averell Harriman was a prime supporter of the Soviets with finance and diplomatic assistance, at a time when such aid was against State Department regulations. Harriman participated in RUSKOMBANK, the first Soviet commercial bank. Vice-President Max May of Guaranty Trust, dominated by the Harriman-Morgan interests, became the FIRST Vice President of RUSKOMBANK in charge of its foreign operations. In brief, an American banker under guidance of a member of The Order had a key post in a Soviet bank! But we also find that Averell Harriman, his brother Roland Harriman, and members E.S. James and Knight Woolley, through the Union Bank (in which they held a major interest) were prime financial backers of Hitler.

Now our textbooks tell us that Nazis and Soviets were bitter enemies and their systems are opposites. How could a rational man support Soviets and Nazis at the same time? Is Harriman irrational or is the inconsistency explainable?

• The Bundy family (we have a Memorandum on them later) gives us another example of seeming inconsistency. William Bundy was with the Central Intelligence Agency for a decade. McGeorge Bundy was National Security Assistant to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. So the Bundys presumably support U.S.-European policy which is pro-NATO. Yet the Bundys have been linked to activities and organizations which are anti NATO and, indeed, pro-Marxist -- for example, the Institute for Policy Studies. Are the Bundys inconsistent?
• Among individual members of The Order we find a wide variety of publicly proclaimed beliefs, ideologies and politics. William Buckley periodically chews out the Soviets. On the other hand, member John Burtt has been a member of a dozen communist front groups. Member William S. Coffin, Jr. spent three years with CIA and then became a leader of anti-Vietnam war activity through the National Conference for a New Politics and Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam. In fact, Coffin was one of the Boston Five charged and indicted for conspiracy to violate Federal laws. And, of course, W. Averell Harriman is elder statesman of the Democratic Party.

Quite a mixture of beliefs and activities. Do they reflect inconsistent philosophies? How can The Order have a consistent objective with this potpourri of individual actions?

The answer is, they are not at all inconsistent: because the objective of The Order is above and beyond these actions and in fact needs these seeming contradictions.

The State is Absolute

How can there exist a common objective when members are apparently acting in opposition to one another?

Probably the most difficult task in this work will be to get across to the reader what is really an elementary observation: that the objective of The Order is neither "left" nor "right." "Left" and "right" are artificial devices to bring about change, and the extremes of political left and political right are vital elements in a process of controlled change.

The answer to this seeming political puzzle lies in Hegelian logic. Remember that both Marx and Hitler, the extremes of "left" and "right" presented as textbook enemies, evolved out of the same philosophical system:

Hegelianism. That brings screams of intellectual anguish from Marxists and Nazis, but is well known to any student of political systems.

The dialectical process did not originate with Marx as Marxists claim, but with Fichte and Hegel in late 18th and early 19th century Germany. In the dialectical process a clash of opposites brings about a synthesis. For example, a clash of political left and political right brings about another political system, a synthesis of the two, neither left nor right. This conflict of opposites is essential to bring about change. Today this process can be identified in the literature of the Trilateral Commission where "change" is promoted and "conflict management" is termed the means to bring about this change.

In the Hegelian system conflict is essential. Furthermore, for Hegel and systems based on Hegel, the State is absolute. The State requires complete obedience from the individual citizen. An individual does not exist for himself in these so-called organic systems but only to perform a role in the operation of the State. He finds freedom only in obedience to the State. There was no freedom in Hitler's Germany, there is no freedom for the individual under Marxism, neither will there be in the New World Order. And if it sounds like George Orwell's 1984 -- it is.

In brief, the State is supreme and conflict is used to bring about the ideal society. Individuals find freedom in obedience to the rulers.

-- America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones, by Antony C. Sutton


Phelps’ purpose in launching the society, as interpreted by the Director of Criminal Intelligence, was to arouse the people in America, India, Ireland and England, by showing them that a united demand for justice was in the offing and if it was repressed, it would be followed by open revolution in India to throw off the foreign yoke. 19

The movement in favour of India in US received further impetus from the visit of Madame Cama as an emissary of the Indian revolutionaries from London and Paris. Arriving in New York in October 1907, Madame Cama delivered a series of lectures before American audiences, explaining to them the purpose of her visit. “I am in America”, she said, “for the sole purpose of giving a thorough expose of the British suppression which is little understood so far away and to interest the warm hearted citizens of the great Republic” in our fight for freedom against the British rule. 20 Explaining the aims of the Indian revolutionaries abroad she made it clear that it was to achieve “Swaraj; self-government” and to strive for “liberty, equality and fraternity” with the hope of getting it within ten years.

When questioned by a press correspondent as to “how this mighty overthrow was to come about,” she explained, “by passive resistance. We are peaceful people and unarmed. We could not rise and battle if we could. We are preparing our people for concentrated resistance.” 21

In the subsequent meetings, which Madame Cama addressed at the Minerva Club and at the Adams Union Theological Seminary, she asked for the help of the American people for the political enfranchisement of India. Her only regret was that the American people had knowledge about the conditions in Russia, but they had no idea about the conditions in India under the British Government. 22

It was on account of her visit and her meeting with Barkatullah and Phelps, that both the societies decided to join in 1908 and worked together for self-rule for India. 23

The ruthless policy of the Government of India to suppress the rising tide of the national movement gradually convinced Indians abroad that it was futile to carry on the struggle on constitutional lines. Madame Cama in Paris and Savarkar in London started advocating violent methods for the attainment of freedom. Their propaganda had a direct impact on the political thinking of the Indians in America. This had already been noticed by the British Consul-General. He reported that the Indians were saying in private that they had been trying for the last twenty-one years to obtain freedom by constitutional means and were now tired of that line and that their difficulty, however, was the same as that of the Irish; they had no arms. 24

An “India House” similar to that of London, was established in New York where Indian interests were to be concentrated and where Indian students and visitors from India were to find warm welcome and a comfortable room at a moderate cost. 25

Morley was beginning to sense that a tide of strong public opinion favouring self-rule for India might one day sweep the United States, a tide of the same kind as had swept public opinion in England respecting Austria, Russia and Turkey. He had even informed Minto after receiving reports from Bryce, the British ambassador, who in his turn had some uneasiness in this direction and had reminded that a German Official was sending a story of the same sort to his Government. 26

Morley’s letter to Minto caused considerable disquiet to the Government of India. Their fears were further augmented by the reports of the Director of Criminal Intelligence, who wrote that the United States was becoming a place of refuge for the young revolutionary Indians from the Continent and India. There were various reasons for the flight of the Indian revolutionaries to the United States. According to her, personal assistant to the Director of Criminal Intelligence, Europe did not prove to be a conducive place for their activities because there they were treated with suspicion and were not readily admitted in ammunition factories or technical institutions. On the contrary, the United States gave ample scope for the distribution of revolutionary literature which was prescribed in India, while in London and Paris the Indian revolutionaries were kept constantly under the careful watch of the British detectives. Besides in the United States, there were Irish nationalists ready to take up any movement likely to embarrass the British Government. 27 In addition to the above, the Indian revolutionaries had by then awakened the sympathy of a section of the American people and their interest in India flowing perhaps from their own “anti-colonial tradition and historic suspicion of Great Britain as an exploiter of the subject people.” 28

After seeing the alarming reports Minto asked Morley to employ “a good lecturer thoroughly well-up in Indian affairs who could appear on the public platform” in the United States and explain the Government of India’s point of view regarding their administration in India. Minto did not favour Morley’s suggestion for sending copies of the Government of India’s reports to the British Ambassador in America for distribution in that country to counter the propaganda of the Indian revolutionaries. 29

Though the agitation in favour of self-rule carried on by these two societies gained them the support of the Americans, yet the policy of the United States’ Government was still favourable towards British rule in India. President Theodore S. Roosevelt had great faith in the efficacy of British rule and found in the “most colossal example history affords of a successful administration by men of European blood of a thickly populated region on another continent.” In his view the successful administration of the Indian Empire by the English has been one of the most admirable achievements of the white race during the last two centuries. The mass of the people have been and are much better off than ever before and far better off than they would be if English rule was overthrown or withdrawn. 30

These flattering views of the President cheered the British rulers, but discouraged the advocates of the Home Rule movement. 31 Morley was happy on this pronouncement of the President and informed Minto that it had been of undoubted material advantage for them. 32 It is believed that Roosevelt openly praised the British rule in response to the appeals of his British friends. 33 Whatever might have been the reasons, his speech in defence of British imperialism did not go unchallenged. Phelps and other members of the Society for the Advancement of India sent an open letter refuting his views. 34 In India also his speech came under a lot of criticism. The press considered that the American President should have refrained from proclaiming from the house-top one-sided judgement for the enlightenment of the world. 35 Another newspaper commented that while boasting of the philanthropic mission of the Whites, the President had completely or rather deliberately ignored the miseries to which the indigenous races had been subjected by the inroads of the Whites in India. 36

Both the India Office and the Indian Government took a lenient view of the Indian revolutionary movement in the United States when they came to know of the departure of Phelps for Europe, of Joshi for India and of Barkatullah for Japan in the beginning of 1909. 37

The departure of these people slowed down the progress of the movement. But the Indian students now thoroughly imbued with nationalist feelings were bitterly opposed to the British rule in India and never lost an opportunity of enlisting American sympathy against the latter. After having come under the influence of the socialistic and revolutionary ideas, they regarded it as their mission in life to work for the subversion of the British rule in India. 38 Besides this trend amongst the student community, the Indian national movement developed more quickly amongst the Indian labourers who were settled on the Pacific Coast under slightly different circumstances.

Indians on the Pacific Coast

As compared to the students, the Indian labourers who emigrated to America in the early years of the century for economic betterment met with a strong opposition. The emigration of Indians began in the year 1904 and reached a high proportion during 1905-06. In the United States, the Indian emigrants were confined to the three states on the Pacific Coast, viz., California, Oregon and Washington. The Indian emigrants came to the United States indirectly, that is, as a result of discrimination in Canada. Here also they were subjected to the prevalent anti-oriental bias of the Pacific Coast States. 39

From the very beginning the Indian emigrants met with a strong hostility from the white labourers and in the wake of the economic crisis of 1907 it developed into a widespread anti-Indian movement. Conflicts became common between Indian and white labour, eventually leading to the violent expulsion of the former from the mills at Bellingham in the state of Washington and from other places in the United States.

The British Ambassador was unwilling to intervene on behalf of the Indians. He took pains to explain the difficulties in the way of securing the immunity of these British subjects from interference in their employment or even from violence. 40 While referring to several serious instances of coercion which had been reported after the occurrence at Bellingham he pointed to the inefficacy of diplomatic intervention on their behalf which was seriously “prejudiced both by the relations between the Federal and State authorities” and by the fact that the Treaty of 1818 which regulated the “rights of the British subjects in the U.S.” could not be “appealed to on behalf of British East Indians*’ as it was applicable only to the inhabitants of His Majesty’s territories in Europe. 41

The emigration to America soon, however, fell off as the American immigration policy became one of selection at first, restriction later and finally of exclusion. This was the case especially with the Indian labourers though the United States authorities were quite liberal towards students and professional and leisured classes. Legally, the Indians were not excluded from entering the United States, but the Emigration authorities devised certain measures by which they could keep the Indians out. Every Indian was put under various tests such as freedom from disease, capacity for self-support, likely to become public charge, which were applied with the deliberate object of deciding against the emigrants in most cases. 42

However, opposition to Indians was nominal as compared to the anti-Japanese sentiments on the Pacific Coast. At the same time, the conditions of the Indian labourers assumed serious proportions in Canada, where they had also emigrated in 1904. Between 1904 and 1908 about five thousand Indians went to Canada. 43 The basic reason of Indian emigration to Canada was economic: Canada, especially British Columbia with its natural resources and sparse population, offered great opportunities to the Indian labourers. The first group of Indians crossed over to Canada about 1904 from Hong Kong having heard much about the wealth in Canada. On arrival they found bright prospects in the wages then current and sent reports to their relations and friends in India and the Fiji Islands which resulted in a rush to Canada. 44

The subsidiary causes leading to their emigration in large numbers in subsequent years were that the steamship companies and their agents in India offered cheap transportation to those who were willing to go there. These private companies gave a great deal of publicity in the rural districts of India to the opportunities of fortune-making available in British Columbia. 45 The majority of the emigrants came from the Punjib and nearly seventy-five per cent of them were Hindus from the districts of Ferozepore, Jullundur, Ludhiana, Amritsar and Lahore and some also from the princely State of Patiala. The rest of the twenty-five per cent were Punjabi Mohammadans. 46

The emigrants mostly came direct from India, but some of them came from Burma, Shanghai, Hong Kong and other places in the Far East, where they had been working as policemen or watchmen. In the beginning, they met with sufficient encouragement. Manual labour was scarce and wages were high in British Columbia and a supply of able-bodied Indians ready to work well for a moderate wage and giving no trouble in the matter of trade union rules was quite beneficial for the white employers. 47 But soon after working hard when the Indians settled down to a comfortable living, their main troubles started. Their advent was vehemently opposed by the white labour groups, whose hostility was the outcome of the fact that it had greatly affected their chances of employment. They started a campaign of “calumny and vituperation against them.” In their anti-Indian movement they were encouraged by the local politicians who were eager to maintain the white labour's vote. The British Immigration Agent, Colonel Falk Warren reported the anti-Indian feelings in Canada and suggested that some provision might be made to meet the situation as strong efforts were on foot by the people in British Columbia to prohibit the entry of the Indians into Canada. His own belief was that it was “very improbable that such a discrimination against British subjects” could be allowed, but in order to avoid the developing crisis he proposed that “immigration from British India might be restricted or regulated.” 48 The British Agent’s report was followed by a despatch from the Canadian Government who asserted that the presence of Indians excited the Canadian people to fury and it was probable that violence would be re- sorted to if nothing was done to restrict future immigrants. 49 They showed their unwillingness to perform the disagreeable duty of enforcing the law against their own people and to protect the interests of the Indians in case adequate steps were not taken to prevent their coming to Canada in large numbers. 50

The Government of India, confronted as it was with the problem of internal unrest 2nd violent agitation and in view of the state of public feeling in India as to the injustice with which Indians were being treated in Canada, the United States and South Africa, were reluctant to take any serious notice of the warning from the Canadian authorities and to restrict Indian emigration to Canada. But the problem of oriental immigration to Canada became so acute that the Canadian Government appointed a Royal Commission in 1908 to report on the matter. The Commission recommended the exclusion or restriction of oriental labour including Indians and considered it a natural desire of Canada to control the immigrants from the orient. Canada’s wish to remain “a Whiteman’s colony” was regarded by the Commission “to be not only desirable for economic and social reasons, but highly necessary on political and national grounds.” 51

The Commission particularly referred to the unsuitability of Indians for settlement in Canada on account of their objectionable manners and customs so unlike those of the people of Canada. 52 Before the introduction of any measures, W.L. Mackenzie King, Deputy Minister of Labour, was sent to London in 1908 to discuss with the British Government the problem of Indian emigration to Canada. The outcome of the secret discussions which took place at the India Office was that Morley, Grey and Elgin agreed that a “self-governing colony like Canada” could not “be prevented from making regulations to exclude or restrict Asiatic immigration. ” 53

With the tacit approval of the British, the Dominion Government issued orders-in-council in May 1908 prohibiting the landing of immigrants unless they came direct from their country of birth or citizenship on through tickets purchased before starting. 54 Morley sounded Minto about this decision of the Colonial Government who were desirous “in the interest of the empire of avoiding any appearance of social discrimination” and had accordingly decided to insist on this rule which was likely to “render it impossible for any Indian to enter Canada” and requested him to “take all possible steps to discourage efforts at such immigration’' 55 from India.

The “continuous journey” order was soon followed by another order-in-council in June 1908 prohibiting the entry into Canada of all Asians other than those who had two hundred dollars in their possession at the time of landing. 56 These orders resulted in creating an effective barrier for Indians to enter Canada since there was no direct steamship service between the two countries and very few Indians could afford to have two hundred dollars in their possession. It is generally held that the policy of exclusion of Indians from Canada “originated through British initiative” and that “the Canadian authorities, with the approval of the British Government in England and possibly with the sanction of the India Office” 57 restricted the immigration of Indians. From the evidence available it seems very doubtful whether the India Office took any initiative in suggesting the idea of a “continuous journey” clause for the exclusion of Indians. However, it is a fact that neither the India Office nor the Government of India raised any objections to these orders. On the contrary, they “complimented the Dominion Government on the conciliatory attitude displayed by them in dealing with the question of Indian immigration.” 58 The Government of India, however, did not agree to the proposal of the Canadian Government for placing restrictions in India on Indian emigration but it gave its unfeigned approval to the Dominion Government to take such measures as were necessary “to restrict immigration into their territories.” 59

The Indian newspapers strongly protested against these laws of Canada and some wrote frankly that “if the Canadians want to debar the Indians from entering Canada, it is highly necessary that they in their turn should be debarred from entering India.” 60

These humiliating restrictions apart, another equally objectionable scheme was devised by the Canadian Government for the deportation to British Honduras of Indians already settled in Canada. However, before the scheme was implemented a delegation of representative Indians was sent to Honduras to study the conditions there. They advised their countrymen to reject the proposal since it was a wholly unsuitable place, “climate and economic conditions being unfavourable.” 61 In view of the strong opposition from the Indians, the scheme was dropped.

The harsh treatment to which the Indians were now subjected both in Canada and on the Pacific Coast aroused in them a feeling of resentment against the British Government which apparently was not willing to safeguard their rights as citizens of the Empire. However, it appears more plausible to say that the exclusion of the Indians from Canada and the United States was largely due to the influence of the Home Government and that it was imperial policy to keep the Indians at home in order to prevent them from acquiring ideas of political liberty.

The common need of protection against the hostility of white labour brought the Mohammadans, Sikhs and Hindus from the Punjab and Brahmans from lower Bengal together in a way that could not have happened in India. The Indian emigrants had not gone to Canada to permanently settle there, but to accumulate money and return to India to free their land from mortgage or to purchase new land. 62 But while living in Canada and the United States, they realised their humiliating position. After having come in contact with free people and free institutions, there dawned in their minds the value of liberty. The burning shame of having been born in a slave country made them appreciate all the more strongly the worth of freedom. Out of their sense of national humiliation and their newly acquired ideas of democracy came a new awakening. This new awakening was further fostered by the preachings of the educated Indians, who had formed a number of societies with the aim of defending the rights of their countrymen as citizens of the British Empire.

The earliest known society, the “Hindustan Association” was established in 1907 by Ram Nath Puri, Tarak Nath Das, Pandurang Khankhoje and others in San Francisco with branches at Vancouver and Astoria. The association brought out a periodical in Urdu Circular-e-Azadi (Circular of Freedom). The association aimed at imparting instructions to Indians on national lines and also to teach them the use of arms and other weapons for self-defence and to foster American sympathy with India. The Association looked after the well-being of the Indians, but from its very inception it started inculcating in them the ideas of driving the British out of India by violent means. Several hundred copies of the Circular-e-Azadi were also sent to India. However, on account of the opposition from some of its members who did not like the rash methods or such open expression of the means of ridding the people of India of British rule, 63 Puri had to discontinue the paper. Its importation into India had already been prohibited on account of its seditious writings. Besides the lukewarm cooperation from the Indians, the constant pin-pricks from the police forced Puri to leave the United States. He made his way to Japan where he worked with Barkatullah. The work of the Association, however, was taken over by Tarak Nath Das (1884-1958), a young Bengali, formerly associated with the Vancouver branch of the Hindustan Association as its treasurer. With the termination of Circular e-Azadi Das brought out another revolutionary paper Free Hindustan, Das had the requisitive training as a revolutionary. While in Calcutta he had taken a prominent part in the political agitation and was one of the founder-members of the Anusilan Samiti, a secret revolutionary society. Leaving India about 1906 he first went to Japan and then proceeded in the same year to San Francisco and joined the University of California at Berkeley. In January 1906, he worked for sometime with the United States Immigration Office at Vancouver. 64

The Free Hindustan was in general appearance and tone of its writing quite similar to the Indian Sociologist of Shyamaji. On account of its strong anti-British propaganda a representation was made by the Dominion Government to Washington referring to the unfriendly attacks made upon British prestige in a paper published by an interpreter in their employment. As a result of this Das resigned from service. 65

After his resignation. Das devoted all his time to the propagation of the nationalist ideas amongst his countrymen. A school at Mill Side, New Westminster, was opened where lectures were delivered on subjects connected with unrest in India and the unfair treatment of Indians in Canada and USA. Das denounced fearlessly the repressive measures which the Government of India was resorting to “crush the national aspirations of the people.” Like Shyamaji, he also reminded the people that there were two paths open to them: one of eternal servitude to an alien people and a consequent annihilation of their life as a nation and the other of a glorious existence as an independent nation. His only advice to them was to shake off the first and follow the second path. 66

Under Das’s selfless devotion and leadership the constitution of the Hindustan Association was revised. Its ambitious object now was to “establish liberty, equality and fraternity of the Hindustan nation” in her “relation with the rest of the nations of the world.” All the members of the Association were enjoined to gave up prejudices of caste, colour and creed. 67 Like the Indian revolutionaries in London and Paris, with whom Das was in close touch, he also believed in creating a revolution in India, but was not sure whether the people in India had “a desire and the power to create it." The primary necessity he considered was to arouse national spirit in the mass of the people of India and to "make them understand the need of national independence." He attached more importance to the establishment of revolutionary organisations not only in British India, but all over India. Being more practical in his outlook he regarded the solitary acts of assassination of the British officials as not adequate to attain the goal which could only be achieved by an organised uprising. 68

The majority of the Indians on the Pacific Coast were slow to fall under the spell of the violent propaganda of Das, they listened more readily to the preachings of his associate Teja Singh, a tireless Sikh leader and secretary of Khalsa Diwan Society established in 1907 with its headquarters at Vancouver, which concentrated mainly on the religious and economic interests of the Sikhs. Another Sikh organisation having similar aims was the Pacific Coast Khalsa Diwan Society formed at the same time. 69

Teja Singh belonged to Amritsar and had studied at Cambridge and Oxford. He went to England in 1906 and was in New York in 1908. In England, he came under the influence of Shyamaji and Rana and while in New York he associated with Phelps and Bhupendranath Datta.
From New York he went to Vancouver with the aim of bringing about a regeneration amongst the Sikhs. In Vancouver, he took part in the labour agitation and was a representative of the Sikhs in a delegation to the Honduras. Through lectures and propaganda in the press, Teja Singh ventilated the grievances of the Sikhs in Canada. After his second visit in 1909 to England he started the agitation against the British more vigorously, and with Das, established an ‘India House’ at Berkeley. 70

Another prominent worker in Canada was Gurudutt Kumar who also started publishing a paper Swadesh Sewak in Gurmukhi. 71 The paper gave wide publicity to the grievances of the Sikhs arising out of the restrictions imposed on them by the laws of Canada and inspired them to fight for their rights. He was a frank and bold champion of the rights of the Indians in Canada for which he frequently came into collusion with the authorities.

Despite the various Indian organisations, the conditions of the Indians in Canada began to deteriorate when more stringent measures were introduced. At first the Indians adopted the constitutional policy for the redress of their grievances by petitioning to the Canadian Government. The first petition was sent in 1911. In response to the petitioning policy of the Indians, the authorities responded with more strict laws. The Indians approached the Secretary of State for India and the Viceroy and sent copies to the Indian national leaders with a request to seek the cooperation of the Indian Government for the removal of the restrictions imposed on the British Indian subjects coming to Canada. 72 Besides the laws already in existence, the Canadian Government then decided not to allow the Indians to bring their wives and children from India.

In 1911 a deputation of Indians went to Ottawa to represent their grievances to the authorities but without any success. Later on the deputation came to India also but nothing fruitful came out of it. The problem reached a crisis when the Immigration authorities refused to admit the wives of two respectable members of the Sikh community at Vancouver, Bhag Singh and Balwant Singh. After prolonged negotiations and propaganda the authorities relented and allowed them to land “as an act of grace.” Subsequently the attempt at exclusion formed a strong basis for an agitation against the inhumanity of separating husbands from their wives and children. Another factor which increased the discontent amongst the Indians was the lenient treatment which was then being accorded by the Canadian Government to the Japanese and Chinese emigrants as compared to the Indians. 73 But this act of grace did not satisfy the demands of the Indians who actively started taking interest in different associations. This atmosphere provided an excellent opportunity to the political leaders to proceed earnestly to indoctrinate their countrymen with political ideas. The results were soon visible in the large attendance at meetings. In the absence of any coordination between the different associations the political propaganda was not very effective. G.D. Kumar, Tarak Nath Das, Bhag Singh. Balwant Singh, Hari Chand Suri and Seth Hassan Rahim were some of the active leaders in Canada who were trying to give the movement a definite shape, but they had failed. Kumar had been constantly appealing to the people to forget the nominal distinction, and “be all united into one strong body of the East Indians” 74 but with no appreciable success.

In 1911 the Indian revolutionaries in Paris, while formulating a scheme of bringing about a successful revolution in India, had taken serious notice of the haphazard growth of the movement on the Pacific Coast, where too many societies had sprung up. 75 To consolidate it into a strong movement against the British Government Har Dayal proceeded to America. 76 Besides Har Dayal Indian revolutionaries in Paris also sent Thakur Das in August 1911 to America on a mission to preach revolutionary ideas “amongst the Sikh brothers on the Pacific Coast.” 77 Kumar immediately propagated the arrival of Har Dayal, who was on a special mission to organise the Indians. Kumar expected that under Har Dayal the people might be “united into one organisation leaving aside the ideas of provincialism.” 78

Har Dayal landed in the United States in January 1911 and with his arrival began a new chapter in the history of the Indian revolutionary movement in the United States.

Har Dayal and the Formation of the Ghadr Party

Har Dayal (1884-19391 son of Lala Gauri Dayal, born in 1884 was educated at St. Stephen’s College, Delhi, and Government College, Lahore. On account of his distinguished academic career, he was awarded a scholarship by the Government for studying at Oxford, but in 1907 after having come under the influence of Shyamaji’s propaganda, he resigned his scholarship saying that no Indian who really loved his country ought to compromise his principles and barter his rectitude for any favour from the alien and oppressive rulers of India. While as a student, a sense of revolt at the dependent position of Indians as a nation had taken deep root in his mind. In England he actively associated with the Home Rule movement of Shyamaji and there blossomed forth as a complete nationalist. 79 He came back to India in the beginning of 1908 and joined the ranks of the extremist leaders. He endeavoured to spread the doctrine of active hostility to the British by advocating the boycott of the British Government at educational institutions and even asked the young lawyers in the Punjab not to work as pleaders because that also amounted to helping the Government. At that time, the extremist leaders of the Punjab had neither the courage nor the inclination to fall in line with his views. Gradually his anti-British propaganda and writings began to attract the attention of the Government and it was feared that the Government would soon find some excuse for putting him behind the bars, so he decided to leave the country. 80 In 1908 he came to Paris with the aim of carrying on the movement from outside for the emancipation of India and worked with Madame Cama and others for some time. In Paris he edited the Bande Mataram, but it appears that he could not pull on well with other Indian revolutionaries, especially Shyamaji, and left for America towards the end of 1910. 81 After his arrival in California, he worked as a lecturer in Indian Philosophy and Sanskrit at the Leyland Stanford University. Although he was doing the work of a regular professor, he did not accept any remuneration 82 from the university. But soon thereafter he left the university, and turned his attention to organising the national movement on the Pacific Coast. While in Europe, Har Dayal had formulated his ideas and thought over the work which he intended to do in America. He belonged to that group of fearless Indians who were struggling to achieve the freedom of their country by organised rebellion and if possible by tampering with the loyalty of the Indian Army. He had been rather too frank in explaining the way in which he wanted to proceed with the object of bringing about a revolution in India and had come in clash with other Indian revolutionaries in London and Paris. A believer in secret or direct methods, Har Dayal could not support the policy of individual assassinations. He observed that “half measures are of no use. They blind the people to the mighty issues that are at stake. We must lay the axe at the root of the tree. The people can never understand the figment of loyalty to a sovereign and hostility to the Viceroy. This is a European conception, which cannot be assimilated by us.” He staunchly believed that it was better to place a clear issue before the people. “Plain speaking,” he considered “carries conviction to the heart, while sophistry only perplexes honest men. This is one of the reasons why Congress has failed to appeal to so many people.” 83

Still relying upon his old convictions and ideas, Har Dayal began the difficult task of organising the movement and followed them vigorously and later events showed that he was not altogether unsuccessful in his efforts. After resigning from the Stanford University he went to Berkeley where he established a students’ club and delivered lectures with the avowed object of creating in them anti-British feelings. Following the example of Shyamaji he also made efforts to give scholarships to Indian students and widely advertised them in India with the hope of attracting a large number of them to the Pacific Coast. 84

While Har Dayal was engaged in reorganising the movement according to his ambitious ideas, his presence was immediately reported by the British Agent, W.C. Hopkinson. He considered that of all the political agitators, who had come to the United States, Har Dayal was the most dangerous and it was unfortunate that he had established his centre at Berkeley among the Indian students attending the University of California, where he was bound to wield a great influence on the young. He advised the Indian authorities to utilise the good offices of the United States Immigration Service (Department of Trade and Commerce) to get rid of Har Dayal. 85 With hardly any concrete evidence, Spring-Rice, the British ambassador was reluctant to encourage the representation against Har Dayal to the authorities in the United States. The Government of India though discouraged by Spring-Rice sent some Bluebooks to Tilton Steele, an Anglo-Indian Assistant to Hopkinson, for delivering lectures refuting the charges made by Har Dayal in his propaganda.

From Berkeley, Har Dayal applied his mind towards the deplorable condition of the Indian labourers on the Pacific Coast and Canada. During the tour of these areas Har Dayal, accompanied by Khankhoje, 86 delivered a series of lectures. Wherever he went, people listened to him enthusiastically and his popularity grew rapidly. The restriction imposed on Indian immigration was the main topic of discussion and Har Dayal fully utilised the discontent amongst the Indians generated by these harsh laws against the Government. 87 Gradually Har Dayal won the support and confidence of his countrymen. The two main organisations, the “Hindustan Association” of the United States of America mainly composed of the students and the “Sikh Khalsa Diwan” readily responded to the appeals of Har Dayal and decided to give him their full support. He also contacted prominent leaders in Canada with the aim of organising them under one single party. After having achieved this remarkable success Har Dayal thought of calling a convention of all the Indian revolutionaries abroad in 1914 and expected that the most ardent political workers from India, France, Switzerland and England would attend with a view to formulate a common scheme for the emancipation of India. This Har Dayal could not achieve on account of later developments which made his stay in the United States an impossibility. It appears from the report of the British Agent that in a short time Har Dayal succeeded in winning the cooperation of the main organisations of the Indians on the Pacific Coast and Canada. 88 A meeting was convened at Astoria on 2 June 1913. attended by the delegates representing different organisations from St. John, Portland, Bridel Veil and many other places. In this momentous meeting Har Dayal convinced the delegates about the urgent necessity of organising a single association which could safeguard their interests more effectively. The proposal met with an enthusiastic response and they agreed to the suggestion of Har Dayal to name their association as “The Hindi Association of the Pacific Coast.” 89 Further resolutions were passed regarding the working of the Association. The party was to publish its own weekly paper, entitled the Ghadry in memory of the mutiny of 1857. The head office of the Association at San Francisco was to be known as Yugantar Ashram or New Era Society. No person was “to get any pay for doing work in the office of the Association or in the Newspaper,” however, he was to be given some maintenance allowance from party funds. Every worker joining the party was required to contribute one month’s pay towards its funds. No religious discussions were to be allowed in the meetings of the party and there was to be an annual election of the office-bearers of the party. 90

The aim of the Association was the overthrow of the British Raj in India and to substitute in its place a national republic based on equality and freedom. The Association wanted to achieve this by an armed national revolution. Every member was declared to be honour and duty bound to participate in the fight against slavery carried on anywhere in the world but especially to crush the British Imperialism. 91

In addition to the office-bearers an organising committee of most of the founding members and a commission of three persons for doing secret and political work were constituted. The three members were Har Oayal, Kanshi Ram (1883-1915) and Sohan Singh Bhakna (1870-1968). Kartar Singh (1896- 1916) Harnam Singh and Jagat Ram were deputed to assist Har Dayal in bringing out the Ghadr. 92

By his devotion and tireless efforts Har Dayal was able to collect sufficient funds for establishing an independent press in San Francisco for the publication of the Ghadr, the first issue of which came out on 1 November 1913. 93 The appearance of this paper gave the association its more popular name “The Ghadr Party.” The paper from its very inception intended to arouse the national self-respect of Indians by perpetually emphasising the fact that they were not respected in the world as they were not free. The name of the party was changed later to “Hindustan Ghadr Party” to make it clear that the organisation did not advocate revolution in the United States. 94
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 27302
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Wed Mar 27, 2019 2:38 am

Part 2 of 2

Har Dayal’s “simplicity, sincerity and sacrifice” bore fruit and within two years he was able to organise the scattered elements of the movement into a powerful organisation. The Government of India gave credit to Har Dayal as the founder of the Ghadr Party, but Sohan Singh Bhakna asserts that “it is wrong to say that Har Dayal was the founder of the “Ghadr Party.” He admits, however, that Har Dayal was a prominent member of the party. 95 No one can deny that other leaders in Canada and the US tried to make a common front, but had failed and it was only Har Dayal who brought them together and placed before them an objective to be achieved by whatever means available.

Even before the formation of the Ghadr Party, Hopkinson had recommended to the Government of India that if it was possible to secure the deportation of Har Dayal, the seditious movement started “by him to bring in other men of his stamp” was likely to be nipped in the bud and would serve as a setback to others who intended to come out to the United States. But the Government of India were opposed to the deportation of Har Dayal, and the Viceroy even dissuaded the Secretary of State from taking such a course of action. 96 But after the formation of the Ghadr Party, and when the Indians on the Pacific Coast had started regarding Har Dayal as a Messiah and the only man who could deliver India free from the hands of the oppressor (the British Government), 97 the authorities in England and India considered it a matter of dire necessity to remove him from the scene of action. To achieve this objective they actively employed their secret agents in the United States. Hopkinson had already introduced P.H.E. Pandian in the ranks of the Ghadr Party and it was through him that the proceedings against Har Dayal were initiated by the US Government. 98 All this was done secretly. In the account which was later submitted to the Foreign Office, Pandian mentioned that it was he who informed the US Government regarding the despatch of the revolutionary leaflets by Har Dayal to India when the bomb was thrown at the Viceroy, Lord Hardinge at Delhi. He further admitted:

I gave evidence before the Justice of Peace of the United States of America and can boldly say that I was one of the chief instruments in having Har Dayal arrested by the US Government. I gave evidence before the US Immigration Officer that he is an anarchist. 99


The Government of India were anxious that after his arrest Har Dayal should be brought to India and that a representation might be made to the US Government through diplomatic channels for deportation. But Spring-Rice, the British Ambassador, advised the Foreign Office to refrain from making any official representation since according to his information Har Dayal had made no secret in his public speeches of his political views and was already marked by the US authorities as a dangerous anarchist and they were contemplating his arrest. 100 India Office agreed to wait on receiving a secret report from Hopkinson who informed them that there was no need for representation as the case of Har Dayal was already ‘‘under consideration by Department of Labour in Washington.” 101

Har Dayal had gone to Washington in February 1914 to plead the cause of the Indians personally before the congressional Committee. Har Dayal, however, refrained from appearing before the Committee as he knew that the United States authorities regarded him as an anarchist and in that position his appearance with the other two members 102 of the delegation would “rather injure than help the representation” 103 with regard to the Asiatic Exclusion Bill. The Immigration authorities in San Francisco received the warrant of Har Dayal by the end of February 1914. Hopkinson, who was mainly instrumental in securing the arrest of Har Dayal, wired London that the Immigration authorities had received the warrant for the arrest of Har Dayal as anarchist. Since the US Immigration authorities had promised to keep him in touch with the development of the case, Hopkinson informed them about his own return to Vancouver. 104

Har Dayal was arrested by the US authorities after his return to San Francisco on 25 March 1914. After two days he was released on bail under a bond of 1,000 dollars. 105 In spite of the public assurances given by the Commissioner of Immigration Anthony Comineth that there would be a fair trial and that the arrest did not mean his deportation, Har Dayal had decided not to wait for the proceedings and fled to Switzerland with the help of the Irish and American sympathisers. 106

The movement started by Har Dayal had won the support of many Americans who not only attended the meetings addressed by him but even gave him a helping hand by speaking along with him in which they inspired the people to rise and revolt against the British just as they had done. 107

By the time Har Dayal left the United States he and his associates had created a formidable association eager to organise a rebellion in India. Har Dayal dubbed by Crewe as the most “dangerous scoundrel of the whole party,” had lent dignity to the movement and brought about a change in the political thinking of the people. The Government of India regarded Har Dayal as one of the most dangerous but an outstanding revolutionary which India had ever produced and a man who had by his organising activities influenced to a great extent the Indians outside the country, who were burning with a passionate desire to see their motherland free of British rule. 108 This change was the outcome of the incessant propaganda carried on through the Ghadr and by its distribution, which now extended to all parts of the world where Indians were to be found. The propaganda of the Ghadr Party had met with an immediate and warm response from the people and within a few months its followers increased both within and outside the United States. Gradually, the party opened its branches in Canada, China, Manila and other places in the Far East. In each issue of the Ghadr the emphasis was laid on the necessity of bringing about a violent revolution in India. 109 The Ghadr enjoined upon all Indians the duty of boycotting the British Government and of refusing to enter its service. The Ghadr was specially intended to appeal to the martial races of India and was posted to the Punjab in large numbers from different places in the United States and the Far East. Along with the anti-British propaganda aimed at instigating Indians to revolt, the Ghadr party took extra care to inform public opinion in America about the situation in India and to neutralize British propaganda in the United States and elsewhere. 110 After the departure of Har Dayal the events moved rapidly. The anti-British movement got a fillip from the voyage of the Komagata Marti, while the outbreak of the world war in August 1914 gave an opportunity to the Ghadr Party to make a practical demonstration of the Ghadr doctrine which it had been preaching to the Indians all over the world. 111

The Voyage of Komagata Maru

After having come under the spell of Har Dayal’s propaganda, the Indians in Canada started thinking in terms of challenging the immigration laws of that country which were creating an unfair distinction between the European and the Indian subjects of the British Government. This realisation became more intense with the arrival of the three delegates, viz., Nand Singh Sehri, Balwant Singh and Narain Singh, who had gone to represent their grievances to the authorities in England and India. 112 The failure of the mission prompted the Indian emigrants to make arrangements for a direct passage service between Calcutta and Vancouver 113 in order to fulfil the conditions laid down by the immigration laws of Canada. The Canadian Government after having come to know about the above scheme of the Indians immediately informed the Secretary of State for Colonies in London that serious consequences were likely to follow if the Indians succeeded in their plan and in that case it would probably become necessary to make drastic amendments of immigration regulations. They further referred to the necessity of preventing an influx into Canada of a race unfitted by their constitutional temperament and habits for permanent residence in that country. 114 The India Office denied having had any information as to the establishment of such communication between India and Canada. 115 After receiving this unsatisfactory reply, the Canadian Government amended their immigration laws and the intimation was conveyed to the Government of India that since the Dominion Parliament anticipated a very congested labour market in British Columbia, it was proposed to prohibit after 31 March 1914 the landing of any immigrants pertaining to artisan, general, or unskilled labour class, subject to a proviso that immigration authorities might admit any immigrant if satisfied. 116

Unaware of these diplomatic communications the Indian emigrants proceeded calmly with their programme of introducing the shipping service before 31 March 1914, as it was rumoured that the law on the subject of Immigration was likely to be made more stringent after that date. In the beginning of 1914, Bihari Lai Varma went to Hong Kong from Canada to charter a steamer. But he failed in his attempt. Behari Lai, however, inspired no confidence amongst the people both on account of his youth and lack of money to finance any such scheme. 117 In the meantime G.D. Kumar had been sent by the Ghadr Party to Manila to open a branch there and to carry on the propaganda of the party. It appears that he interested Baba Gurdit Singh (1860-1954), a rich contractor of Singapore, with the idea of chartering a steamer to convey Indian passengers to Canada and America. 118 Gurdit Singh knew about the failure of the scheme of Behari Lai and agreed to undertake the project. Like a true businessman he gave a good deal of publicity to the programme of starting a direct steamer service between Calcutta and Vancouver by Sri Guru Nanak Steamer Company. On 13 February 1914, he published an advertisement for intending emigrants explaining in some detail what his proposals were. In the beginning there was some difficulty in finding a ship, but in March 1914 Komagata Marti was chartered from a Japanese firm through Mr A. Bune, a German shipping agent in Hong Kong. To start with, the Hong Kong authorities deliberately delayed the departure of the ship. The reason was that they wanted to prevent the vessel from proceeding since it was anticipated by them that the passengers would not be admitted into Canada. 119 Legally the authorities were powerless to stop the ship from sailing and after negotiations, Gurdit Singh got the permission to sail on 4 April with 165 passengers. On the way 111 passengers were taken at Shanghai, 86 at Meji and 14 at Yokohama and the Komagata Maru sailed for Vancouver with 376 passengers. 120 The Government of India viewed the departure of the ship as a deliberate attempt by the Indians to challenge directly the legality of the Canadian immigration laws and in their opinion they should not have left in a body at a time when the Canadian Government had declared that it did not want any more labourers or artisans. 121 As compared with the official attitude, the public was asking: “But what about the right of Indians as British subjects?” and newspapers like the Tribune hoped that they would not be summarily turned back. Such an exclusion in the opinion of the paper was likely to create trouble for the Government. The time had come, the paper continued, for the Government of India to intervene on behalf of the people and secure not only their landing, but also the removal of an indefensible prohibition. 122 The Government of India preferred “to have the immigrants rejected by Canada than to exercise any control,” 123 as they were powerless to do so under the existing rules. While on the way, Gurdit Singh cheered the passengers by saying that “we are going to have a test case. The Canadian Government can never send us back because we are English subjects, and if it does send us back that will have a very bad effect upon India.” 124

On its way to Canada the emissaries of the Ghadr Party encouraged the passengers and distributed copies of the Ghadr at Shanghai, Shimonosaki (Meji) and Yokohama and at the last named port the ship was visited by Bhagwan Singh and Barkatullah and the former delivered a spirited address to the passengers advising them to rise against the British Government. 125 As expected, when the ship reached Vancouver on 21 May 1914, the Canadian Government refused to allow the immigrants to land. The main question before the Indians now at stake was not that Canada had a legal right to exclude anybody, but whether British citizenship carried with it the right of free entrance to any part of the Empire. 126

The unjust refusal of the Canadian Government to permit the Indian immigrants to land was keenly resented both by the passengers and their countrymen in India and abroad. Public meetings were held not only on the ship and in Canada, but also in India to condemn the highhanded policy of the Canadian Government.
The Indians at Vancouver also formed a committee with a view to helping the passengers and for creating facilities for their landing but with little success. Desh of Lahore reminded the Indians that it was their duty to “protest against such injustice and oppression,” and appealed that “every town and village in India should hold meetings to call the attention of the Government to the affair.” 127

Along with the protest meetings the passengers on the Komagata Maru also considered it preferable to fight legally. They approached the Canadian Court of Law and lodged an appeal in the name of Mansa Singh. The judicial authorities at Victoria tried it as a test case on which to decide the fate of all. 128 It was apparent that neither the Canadian Government nor the people were willing to allow any more Indians into their country and even before the Indians took their case to the Court, there was a strong movement in Vancouver amongst the local people to send by force the Komagato Maru with its passengers back to India, as it was feared that the Court’s verdict might go in their favour. 129 Perhaps sensing the temperament of the people the case of Mansa (Munshi) Singh was rejected by the Court. In addition, the Canadian authorities raised another objection about the payment of the charter money. 130 The necessary amount was immediately collected by the Indians in Canada and the Charter was transferred to the names of Bhag Singh and Husain Rahim. The orders of deportation passed by the Canadian Court on all the passengers further gave a mortal blow to the rights of Indians, and in the protest meetings the Indians made it clear to the authorities that by ill-treating them they were rendering a great disservice to the British Empire. 131 Lajpat Rai also hinted in a letter dated 30 June 1914 that on account of these orders passed on the Komagata Marti passengers “we are on the threshold of a great agitation amongst the Indians.” 132 The Tribune of Lahore warned that if a whole body of nearly 400 passengers were turned back, “the position of the Indians would be known definitely and it was after all proper to know one’s status.” The paper anticipated that probably after the return of the Indians, they would “consider whether they were satisfied with their lot and if not what they would do to deserve better.” 133

The Government of India did not attach any significance to these warnings. The India Office cared less and dismissed the issue by saying that the Enterprise had been “financed by the Indian agitators for political purposes in India.” 134

After prolonged but fruitless negotiations between the passengers and the Canadian authorities, the Komagata Maru left Vancouver on 23 July for Hong Kong. The affair cost the passengers enormously and the sufferings of those on board, who were refused even provisions and water, were immense. For about two months, the passengers underwent all sorts of miseries at the hands of the Canadian authorities and at the time of leaving Gurdit Singh sent a telegram which was published in the Japan Times warning the British Government that they would make it impossible for them to maintain their rule in India 135 after such treatment of the Indians. But at Yokohama, Gurdit Singh was informed by the Hong Kong authorities that they would not allow the landing of the passengers and mentioned their decision to enforce the local vagrancy ordinance against any “who might attempt to land at that port.” 136 This order further inflamed the anti-British feelings of the passengers and when they diverted the ship towards Calcutta they were inspired with the single determination to end British Imperialism and work for their country’s honour and freedom. In their view a Government which made the Komagata Maru incident possible had no moral right to exist. 137 The Ghadr Party supplied the passengers with money and arms. The beginning of the programme for bringing about a revolt in India had been made. 138

The Government of India was aware of the turbulent feelings of the returning passengers and in the beginning of August 1914 had fully armed themselves with special legislation and powers to keep the situation under control. The Ingress into India Ordinance of 1914 which was passed immediately empowered them to restrict the liberty of any person entering India after 5 September, if such action was considered necessary for protecting the state.

The Komagata Maru arrived at the mouth of Hooghly at the end of September. Under the above ordinance, the luggage of each passenger was examined and they were directed to disembark and proceed to a special train which was in readiness to convey them to their respective places in the Punjab. Instead of obeying these orders, the passengers started marching towards Calcutta with the intention of depositing a copy of the Granth Sahib at the Sikh Gurdwara and to make a representation to Government. But they were stopped by the British police near Budge Budge. Resenting this there ensued a fight between the two parties which resulted in the killing of nearly twenty Indians while the loss of life on the Government side was only two British and two Indian policemen. During the night following the riot many Indians escaped to the neighbouring villages while others were arrested and Gurdit Singh himself disappeared and came to the notice of the authorities only at the end of the war.

This incident aroused the public feelings especially in the Punjab against the highhanded policy of the Government. In order to appease the public but in reality to whitewash the doings of the Canadian authorities and the officials at Budge Budge, the Government of India appointed, in October, a Committee of Enquiry to look into the circumstances of the voyage and the landing at Budge Budge of the Komagata Maru passengers. But privately Hardinge informed Crewe that the main advantage of the enquiry would be that it would elucidate the fact that the Sikhs behaved very badly. 139 Despite the enquiry, the series of calamities which fell to the lot of the Indians on the Komagata Maru had a tremendous impact on the revolutionary movement in India and abroad. The Ghadr Party had already been urging their countrymen to return to India and overthrow the oppressive Government; now this incident served as a powerful stimulus to the propaganda already at work among them. 140 The Director of Criminal Intelligence also noted in May 1914 that the rapid discontent among the Sikhs and other Punjabis on the Pacific Coast was one of the worst features in the present political situation. The leaders, he commented had thrown the entire blame for the failure of the venture upon the one-sided policy of the British Government in India who had shown no interest in the welfare of the Indians in the British colonies. 141 Shiploads of Indians started towards India in the trail of the Komagata Maru with the single object of overthrowing the British Government. In fact the repeated indignities which had been heaped upon the Indians in Canada as well as the humiliation which they received on their arrival in India contributed towards the sapping of the loyalty of the Sikhs in the Punjab. 142 The Sikhs who for years past had regarded themselves as specially favoured community indispensable to the “British Raj” had begun to have some doubts. When the Budge Budge riot occurred and a number of Komagata Maru passengers were shot and others arrested and put in jail under the Ingress into India Ordinance, the idea was for a time prevalent that the Government was actually biased against the Sikhs. This state of feelings amongst the Sikhs was viewed by the Punjab Government as “particularly unfortunate in view of the number of’’ 143 Indians who were then on their way back to India. The declaration of war in August 1914 and this incident helped the Indian revolutionaries to make preparations for a revolution in India for the overthrow of the British Government.

________________

References

1. Note by Director of Criminal Intelligence “on Indian Revolutionary Activities in America,” H.P.D., June 1909, No. 30. N.A.I.

2. V. Chirol, ( ndian UnrestX (London, 1910), p. 28.

3. Haridas T. Mazumdar, America's Contribution to India's Freedom Allahabad, 1962, p. 5.

4. Note on Serious 'Disturbances and Political Trouble in India 1907- 1917. Home Political Deposit, February 1918, No. 31. N.A.I.

5. Commerce & Industry Deptt., Emig. B, March 1913, Nos. 31 34. N.A.I.

6. Note C.J. Stevenson-Moore, D.C.I., 30 September 1907. H.P.D., June 1909, No. 30 N.A.I.

7. British Consul Laidlaw to Foreign Office, 26 June 1907. F.D. S.E., March 1908, Nos. 595 600. N.A.I.

8. Quoted in F.D., S. I, July 1906, Nos. 55-56. N.A.I.

9. Ibid. The Irish nationalists who were championing the cause of Indians in the USA were George Freeman, the editor of the Gaelic American and John Davey of the Clan na Gael.

10. ibid

10a. The Gaelic American , 9 December 1905, Home Public Deposit, Dec. 1906, No. 129. N.A.I.

11. Enclo : British Consul Laidlaw to Foreign Office, 26 June 1908, Foreign Deptt.. Secret External, March 1908, Nos. 595 600. N.A.I.

12. Note on the Pan-Aryan Association, Foreign Department, Secret Internal, February 1910, Nos. 56 59. Both Joshi and Barkatullah were known to Shyamaji. The name pan Aryan was selected with a view to include some Persian students who were then studying in New York. ibid. Another association which existed at that time was the Indo-American Association formed by G.N. Mukerjee, M.C. Sinha and other students at Oregon, but not much is known about its activities. Home Public Deposit, Dec. 1906, No. 129. N.A.I.

13. Home Political B, August 1907, Nos. 138-148. N.A.I.

14. The Ghadr Directory (New Delhi, 1934), p. 16.

15. Indian Agitators Abroad (Simla, 1911), p. 137.

16. “History-Sheet of Myron H. Phelps.” Home Political Deposit, October 1909, No. 17. N.A.I.

17. Native Newspaper Reports, Bombay, 1907.

18. Indian Sociologist, September 1906.

19. “History-Sheet of Myron H. Phelps,” Home Political Deposit, October 1909, No. 17 N.A.I.

20. “History Sheet of Madame Cama.” Home Political B, Aug. 1913, No. 61. The Sun (New York) dated 20 October 1907, while commenting on her visit wrote : “Madame Cama, the East Indian reformer and lecturer arrived here on Saturday. He and her husband are high class persons and are among the recognised leaders of the movement in India to throw off the British yoke. Madame Cama being especially radical.” Foreign Department, Secret Internal, February 1910, Nos. 56-59. N.A.I.

21. “History-sheet of Madame Cama,” Home Political B, Aug. 1913, No. 61. N.A.I.

22. “Memorandum on Anti British agitation in England, Part IV,” Foreign Department, Confidential B, General, 1911, No 62. N.A.I.

23. Report of the C I.D. on Indian Unrest , p. 149, IOL.

24. Percy Sanderson, British Consul-General, New York, to H.M. Durand, British Ambassador, Washington, 25 Oct. 1906, Foreign Department, Secret-Internal, May 1907, Nos. 25-27. N.A.I.

25. History- Sheet of Myron Phelps. Home Political Deposit, October 1910, No. 17. N.A.I.

26. Morley to Minto, 23 April 1908, Morley Papers. Bryce also informed the Foreign Office that there were “Hindus in American cities hatching treasonable and dangerous plots.” Bryce to Foreign Office, 21 July 1909, Foreign Department, Confidential B, General, 1910, No. 13. N.A.I.

27. J.C. Ker, Political Trouble in India 1907-1917 (Calcutta, 1917), p. 219.

28. Guy Hope, America and Swaraj: The US Role in Indian Independence (Washington, 1968), p. 11.

29. Minto to Morley, 12 August 1908, Morley Papers. I.O.L.

30. Speech by President Roosevelt delivered at the Metropolitan Methodist Episcopal Church on 18 January 1909. Home Political Deposit, October 1910, No 17.

Other Americans, especially Sherwood Eddy said “what would happen if Great Britain left India today? India would welter in blood, with hopeless internal wars”; yet others sympathised with the Indian national movement. For details about the different shades of opinion about India see Some American Opinions on the Indian Empire (London, 1915) and Some American Opinions on British Rule in India , published by the Indian Nationalist Committee (Stockholm, 1919).

31. Guy Hope, op. cit., p. 6.

32. Morley to Minto, 4 February 1910, Morley papers, I.O.L.

33. Diwakar Prasad Singh, “American Official Attitude Towards the Indian Nationalist Movement, 1905-1929” Thesis, University of Hawaii, 1964, Microfilm). This is confirmed by the correspondence which passed between Roosevelt and other British officials and especially Morley- Morley talked to Whitclaw Reid, the American Ambassador in London, about pro Indian developments in America and got it conveyed to President Roosevelt through Sydney Brooks that he (Roosevelt) should say something in public so that the British policy in India might be put before the Americans in proper light. Roosevelt to Sydney Brooks, 28 December 1908, quoted in Manoranjan Jha Civil Disobedience and After— The American Reaction to Political Developments in India during 1930-1935 (Delhi, 19731, pp. 9-10. For further details about this aspect see Biting E. Morison, The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt (Cambridge, 1952 ;, Vol. 6.

34. “History sheet of Myron H. Phelps” see also the “Open Letter to Theodore Roosevelt.” Home Political Deposit, October 1910, No. 17. N.A.I.

35. Gujarati, 24 January 1910. Native Newspaper Reports, Bombay, 1910.

36. Shakti, 23 January 1910. ibid.

37. Indian Agitators Abroad, p. 139. Joshi belonged to an Indian state and on the representation made by the British Government, he decided to leave the United States and came back to India where he tendered an apology for having associated with the Indian revolutionaries there. Foreign Department, Secret International, February 1910, Nos. 56-59. N.A.I.

38. R.H. Bruce-Dickson to Secretary of State, for Foreign Affairs, 8 March 1910. Foreign Department, General B, June 1910, Nos. 9-12 N.A.I.

39. Gary R. Hess, “The Hindu in America : Immigration and Naturalization Policies in India 1917-1946,” Pacific Historical Review, Vol. XXXVIII, 1969, p. 60.

40. Bryce to Edward Grey, 14 October 1907. Judicial and Public Department, F No. 821/1907, IOL.

41. ibid.

42. Note by C E. Low, 14 July 1916. Commerce and Industry, Emigration A, November 1916, Nos. 1-16. The total exclusion of the Indians was accomplished by the Immigration Law passed in February 1917.

43. The returns of the Immigration Department show that the flow of Indians from India to Canada was as follows:

June 1904 to June 1905 / 45
June 1905 to June 1906 / 387
June 1906 to March 1907 / 2,124

March 1907 to March 1908 / 2,623 Vide W-L. Mackenzie King, “Oriental Immigration to Canada.” US Department of Justice Records, Roll No. 1 . See also Commerce and Industry Deptt. Immigration A, October 1913, Nos. 31-33. N.A.I.

44. W. Hopkinson’s “Report on Hindu Affairs in Canada.” US Department of Justice Records, Roll. No. 1. N.A.I.

45. Mackenzie King, op. cit

46. Dady Burjar to W C. McPherson, 30 January 1914, Commerce & Industry Department, Immigration A, December 1914, No. 4, N.A.I.

47. India Office Memorandum on Indian Immigration into Canada, 26 Aug. 1916. Commerce & Industry Department, Emigration Filed and Indexed, October 1915, No. 68. N.A.I.

48. Colonel F. A. Warren to Govt, of India, 22 November 1906. Commerce & Industry Department, Emigration A, May 1907, Nos. 7-29. N.A.I.

49. Notes. Commerce and Industry Department, Emigration A, February 1908, Nos. 18-33. N.A.I.

50. Viceroy to Secretary of State, 22 Jan. 1908. ibid.

51. Report of Mackenzie King on “Oriental Immigration to Canada,” 2 May 1908. Commerce & Industry Department, Emigration A, July 1908, Nos. 15-19. Morley while discussing the Indian immigration controversy considered it as the most hopeless in the world and “no wonder that the Indian who is a sensitive animal, hates the action of the colonies, but it is no wonder that the colonies insist on remaining white.” Morley to Minto, 12 November 1908, Minto Papers. National Library Edinburgh.

52. Report of Mackenzie King, op. cit.

53. Secretary of State to Viceroy, 25 March 1908. Judicial & Public Department, F-No. 1235/1913. I O.L.

54 India Office Memorandum on Indian Immigration into Canada,'* 26 Aug. 1915. Commerce and Industry Department, Emigration Filed and Indexed, October 1915, No. 68. N.A I.

55. Secretary of State for India to Government of India, 19 June 1908, Commerce & Industry Department, Emigration A, July 1908, Nos. 15-19. N.A.I.

56. “India Office Memorandum on Indian Immigration into Canada", 26 Aug. 1915, Commerce & Industry Department, Emigration Filed and Indexed, October 1908, No. 68. Baba Gurdit Singh holds that this innocent provision was cleverly explained to be merely in the interest of the immigrant adventurer who, for the sake of prudence, should have something to fall back upon so as not to be left stranded on a foreign shore. Baba Gurdit Singh, Voyage of Komagata Maru (Calcutta, n.d.), p. 10.

57. K.K. Banerjee, Indian Freedom Movement , Revolutionaries in America (Calcutta, 1969), p. 3.

58. Notes. Commerce & Industry Department, Emigration B, June 1910, Nos. 14 15. N.A.I.

59. Viceroy to Secretary of State, January 1908, Judicial & Public Department, F.No. 1235/1913. l.O.L.

60. Bombay Samachar, 6 June 1909. Native Newspaper Reports, Bombay, 1910.

61. “Memorandum on matters affecting East Indian Community in British Columbia” by Colonel E.J E. Swayne. C & I. Department, Emigration A, May 1909, No. 13. N.A.I.

62. ibid.

63. Walter R. Hearn (British Consul-General, San Francisco) to Grey, 20 April 1908. Commerce & Industry Department, Emigration B, July 1908, Nos. 5-6. N.A.I.

64. Indian Agitators Abroad (Simla, 1911), p. 47.

65. “Memorandum on Matters Affecting the East Indian Community in Canada." C. & I. Department, Emigration A, May 1909, No. 13.

66. “History-sheet of Tarak Nath Das”, C. & I. Department, Emigration B, March 1912, Nos. 31-44. N.A.I.

67. See Rules and Regulations of the Hindustan Association. C&l Department, Emigration B, May 1911, Nos. 4-5. N.A.I.

68. Free Hindustan, March-April 1910,.

69. Rajni Kanta Das, Hindustani Workers on the Pacific Coast (Berlin, 1923), p. 89.

70. Indian Agitators Abroad (1911 Simla,) pp. 169, 179.

71. Notes Home Political A, April 19, No. 18. The first issue of the paper was brought out on 1 February 1910. N.A.I.

72. Copy of the Petition sent to Earl of Crewe, 25 April 1911. C. &. I. Department, Emigration B, September 1911, Nos 4-7. See also F. No. 279, Gokhalc Papers - A copy of the petition was sent to Gokhale also.

73. F.C. Ismonger and J. Slattery, An Account of the Ghadr Conspiracy (Lahore, 1919), pp. 4-5, IOL.

74. “The Span of Life,” March 1912, Foreign Office 275/1912, PRO.

75. Besides the societies already mentioned earlier there were Association for the Promotion of Education of the People of India and Hindustan Club at Seattle composed of students. At Portland there were Bharat ScwakSabha and United India League, with the main purpose of bringing about the social and political regeneration of Indians by constitutional means. Ibid.

76. The need for a capable leader had been communicated by Das to his friends in Paris. Das had suggested Ajit Singh, while the Indian nationalists sent Har Dayal. Ker, op cit., p. 234. Har Dayal had also made up his mind while in Algiers to go to America as he could not carry on cordially with others in Paris. Har Dayal to Madame Cama, 21 May 1910, Har Dayal Papers. NMML.

77. Indian Agitators Abroad (Simla, 1911), p. 171, IOL.

78. The Span of India, March 1912; No. F O 275/1912 P.R.O.

In the opinion of Director of Criminal Intelligence, before the coming of Har Dayal, there was^o dangerous organisation of Indian revolutionaries on the Pacific Coast, but he anticipated that the great many of the Indians who were dotted about in various places there entertained extremely revolutionary ideas which might at any time culminate in desparate enterprises in India on the part of the individuals, if they were organised by a capable leader. D.C.I. to India Office, 9 Aug. 1911, Home Political Deposit, August 1911, No. 17. N.A.I.

79. Indian Agitators Abroad (Simla, 191 1). p. 70.

80. Lajpat Rai, Young India (New Delhi, 1965), p. 167.

81. See Har Dayal’s correspondence with Rana 1909-10, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi.

82. A. Carnegie Ross, British Consul-General San Francisco to Mitchell Innes, Charge d' Affaires, The British Embassy Maine, 21 Sept. 1912- Commerce & Industry Department, Emigration B, February 1913, Nos. 28-32. N.A.I.

83. Extract from the letter of Har Dayal quoted in Ismonger and Slattery, op. cit., p. 1 See also Har Dayal, A Sketch of Complete Political Movement for the Emancipation of India, Har Dayal Papers. N-M M.L.

84. W.C. Hopkinson to W.W. Cory, Deputy Minister of the Interior, Ottawa, 5 Nov, 1912, C. and I. Department, Emigration B, February 1913, Nos-28-32. Funds for the scholarship were provided by Bhai Jawala Singh, a wealthy farmer and six Guru Gobind Singh scholarships were announced in Indian newspapers.

85. Hopkinson to Foreign Office, 21 January 1913. Home Political B, June 1913, Nos 5-17. N.A.I.

86. Home Political Deposit, March 1921, No. 69. N.A.I. At that time Khankhoje was vice-president of the Hindustan Association of United States of America, which mainly looked after the interests of the Indian students and was later obscured by the activities of the Ghadr party. Ibid.

87. Ismonger and Slattery, op. cit., p. 8.

88. Hopkinson to Foreign Office, 17 February, 1913, Home Political B, June 1913, Nos- 5 17. N.A.I.

89. Ismonger and Slattery, op. cit., p. 13 Other prominent workers who attended this meeting were Thakur Das, Ram Chandra Peshwari, Pandit Kanshi Ram, Sohan Singh Bhakna, and Nawab Khan. Sohan Singh Bhakna gives the date of the meeting as 13 March 1913. See the “Statement of Sohan Singh Bhakna” History of Freedom Movement, File No. 21/2, N A. I.

90. Statement of Sohan Singh Bhakna , op. cit.

91. Randhir Singh, Ghadr Heroes (Bombay, 1945), p. 9.

After the passing of the resolutions, the* election for the main workers of the Association was held and the following were elected :

President: Sohan Singh Bhakna
Vice-President: Kesar Singh Didha
General Secretary: Har Dayal
Treasurer: Pandit Kanshi Ram
Vice-Treasurer: Hamam Singh
Organising Secretaries: Karim Bakhsh and Munshi Lai
Joint Secretary: Thakur Das.

Statement of Sohan Singh Bhakna, op. cit.

92. Randhir Singh, op. cit., p. 9.

93. The very first issue of this paper reflected the ideas of Har Dayal. In an article ‘ our name and work,” it explained “What is our name? Mutiny (Ghadr). Where will the mutiny break out? In India. When ? In a few years. Why ? Because people can and are ready to fight and die for freedom.” There was no secret about the aims and objects of the Ghadr, the sub title of which declared it to be the “enemy of the British Government.” Home Political Deposit, Oct. 1915, No. 43. N.A.I.

94. Mark Naidis, “Propaganda of the Ghadr Party,” Pacific Historical Review , Vol. XX (1951), p. 261.

95. Statement of Sohan Singh Bhakna , op. cit.

96. Home Political B, June 1913, Nos. 5-17. The Government of India was against this move because under the Immigration laws Har Dayal would be deported to the last place of residence (Martinique) and not to India, ibid .

97. Hopkinson to Foreign Office, 13 February 1914. Foreign Office, No. 371/2152/1914 P.R.O. Hopkinson was a Police Inspector at Calcutta, before he came to Canada in 1907. Later on he was employed by the Department of the Interior in Canada and was also an agent of the British Government and used to send reports about the activities of the Indian revolutionaries. He was killed by Mewa Singh. See Home Political A, January 1915, Nos. 3 6. N.A.I.

98. The proceedings against Har Dayal were initiated after Hopkinson received assurance from the Assistant Commissioner of Immigration that if the former was able to prove that “any of the Hindu students in the US” was an anarchist then the Immigration authorities would take action. See Hopkinson’s report, Home Political B, June 1913, Nos. 5 17. N.A.I.

99. Pandian to the British Ambassador, 5 November 1915. Foreign Office, 371/2784/1916- The other British Agent A. Tilton Steele also informed Spring-Rice that we succeeded in moving the Immigration authorities in San Francisco to deport one of the chief leaders, Har Dayal of Stanford University See Foreign Office, 115/2068/1916. PRO Even Har Dayal attributed his arrest to British influence. See Ker, op. cit., p. 238.

100 Spring-Rice to Grey, 9 February 1914. Foreign Office; 371/2152/1914. The American authorities regarded Har Dayal as out and out anarchist, “who believed not only in revolution in India, but revolution everywhere, he believed in a combination and consolidation of all the anarchist forces in the entire world for the purpose of social industrial and all kinds of revolutions of the rankest character.” Trial records, p. 12. By his revolutionary speeches, Har Dayal came within the purview of the expulsion provisions of the Immigration laws of the United States. “Memorandum on Indians in America," US Department of Justice Records Roll No. 1. The evidence needed by the US authorities was given by both Pandian and Steele as mentioned earlier.

101. Hopkinson to Foreign Office, 13 February 1914. Foreign Office, 371/ 2152/1914. P.R.O.

Don Dighan, however concludes on the basis of British Foreign Office papers that action against Har Dayal was taken by the American officials independently. Don K. Dighan, “The Hindu conspiracy in Anglo-American Relations during World War I.” Pacific Historical Review Vol. XL 1971. p. 61.

102. The other two members were Dr Sudindra Bose and Dr Bishan Singh.

103. Hopkinson to Foreign Office, 19 February 1914. F.O. 371/2152/1914. PRO.

104. ibid.

105 The bond was furnished through the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company of Baltimore, Maryland. Spring-Rice to Grey, 7 May 1914. ibid.

106. Har Dayal had an inkling that he would not be allowed to carry on his anti-British activities in America for long and in a meeting on 31 December 1913 had informed his countrymen that “if I am turned out of this country, I can make preparations for the mutiny in any other country. Our Ashram and our arrangements are so complete that the Ghadr work will not be stopped by my leaving the country. I shall have to go to Germany to make arrangements for the approaching Ghadr.” The Ghadr, 7 April 1914. Samras believes that it was through the influence of William Jennings Bryan that Indian revolutionaries whisked away Har Dayal to Europe. The Maharatta 16 September 1938.

107. In one of the meetings an American asked Har Dayal about the population of India which the latter replied was about 30 crores. “How many Englishmen are there,” asked the American. “About l£ lakhs,” replied Har Dayal The American then remarked that this small number of Englishmen could be driven out of the country with stones without difficulty. Har Dayal admitted this fact and added that Indians were gradually becoming conscious of their power. Ismonger and Slattery, op. cit., p. 25.

108. “History Sheet of Har Dayal.” Home Political F.No. 28/7/1938. N.A.I.

109. See “Memorandum on the Indian Revolutionary Activities in the United States.” US Department of Justice Records, Roll No. 2. N.A.I.

110. See pamphlets by R. Chandra, i.e , “Exclusion of Hindus From America and, “India Against Britain” (November 1916 U.S.A.).

111. In the beginning, the Ghadr was issued weekly in Urdu and Gurmukhi. In May 1914, a third edition of this paper started in Gujarati. In 1915, a Hindi edition of the paper was also brought out. After Har Dayal, Ram Chandra became its editor. Besides the Ghadr, the other publications of the party were Ghadr di Gun, Hand-Jung, Bilan, “A Little Wisdom is a Dangerous Thing,” “Evidence of Figures.” These were composed for the Indians and were distributed all over the world. “War Office Memorandum on German Literary Propaganda as Regards India and the Orient.” Home Political Deposit, Dec 1916, No. 30. N.A.l.

112. But before leaving England, the delegation, however, made it clear to reporter of a London paper that Canada’s “treatment of the Sikhs will do more to injure the British Empire than the gift of six dreadnaughts would have helped.” Emigration A Section, 1913, Nos. 31-33. N.A.L.

113. Attempts had been made previously in 1910 and 1912 to charter a ship to run between Calcutta and Vancouver, but without success. Hopkinson, the British Agent had reported in November 1910 that the Hindus in Canada had worked up a plan to bring over Hindus from India. Hopkinson’s Report, 17 November 1910. Hopkinson to F.O. 17 November 1910, Judicial and Public, Department F. No. 568/1911. l.O.L.

114. Government of Canada to Secretary of State for Colonies, 16 August 1913. Judicial and Public, Department, No. 1235/1913. I.O.L.

115. Judicial and Public Department, E. No. 1235/1913. I.O.L.

116. Secretary of State to Viceroy, 25 October 1913. Ibid.

117. Report of Dr Raghunath Singh on the voyage of Komag at a Mam Home Political A, Sept. 1914,08. 211-224 KW. N.A.I.

118. Chief Secretary, Govt, of Bengal to Secretary, Govt, of India, 29 June 1914, Commerce and Industry Department, Emigration A, September 1914, Nos. 40-47. Even as early as 1910 G.D. Kumar along with other leaders in Canada formulated a plan to bring out Hindus from India. However, the scheme did not materialise. Judicial and Public Department No. 568/1911. Amongst the correspondence of Harnam Singh Sehri, who was hanged in the Burma conspiracy case, which the British captured, there were large number of letters from Kumar which showed that he was connected with the organisation of the Komagata Mam expedition. The Ghadr Directory, op. cit., p. 193. Baba Gurdit Singh had taken active part in the agitation at Singapore for the removal of restrictions on the emigration of Asiatics in Canada. He was reported to be a leader among his compatriots and was popularly known as Bengal Ka Kaptan. Ghadr Directory (Delhi, 1934), p. 91.

Even the Director of Criminal Intelligence reported that there was no doubt about the connection of Gurdit Singh with the revolutionary Indians in Canada and America. Gurdit Singh had sent to India the prospectus of his steamer company which he named Siri Guru Nanak Steamer Company along with the copy of the Ghadr. See C R. Cleveland note dated 8.5.1914, Commerce and Industry Emig A, Sept. 1914, Nos. 40-47. N.A.I.

119. William Vincent to Secretary Home Department, 3 December 1914, Home Political A, March 1915, Nos. 1-13. N.A.I.

120. Ker, op. cit., p, 240.

121. Native Newspapers Report , Punjab, 1914.

122 ibid.

123. R L. Borden to G H. Parley 17 July 1914, Emigration A, Oct. 1914, Nos. 3-6. N.A.I.

124- Report of Dr Raghunath Singh on the voyage of the Komagata Maru. Home Political A, Sept. 1914, Nos. 21 1-224 KW. N.A.I.

125 Ker, op. cit., p. 240. “Even Gurdit Singh during both the onward and on its return voyages posed as a revolutionary leader.” Ghadr Directory, p. 92.

126. S.A. Waiz, Indians Abroad (Bombay, 1927), pp. 670-71.

127. Native Newspapers Reports, Punjab, 1914.

128. Tsmonger and Slattery, op cit., pp. 37-38.

129. US Department of Justice Records, Roll No. N.A.I. A firm of solicitors in Canada refused to take up the case of the Indians since in their opinion the matter was now “beyond the realm of legal proceedings” and had become a question of national policy and diplomacy rather than law. See Baba Gurdit Singh, op. cit., pp. 18-19.

130. Ismonger and Slattery, op cit , p. 38.

131. The Tribune, 11 June 1914; Native Newspapers Reports , Punjab, 1914.

132. The Punjabee (Lahore), 30 June 1914. Native Newspapers Reports, Punjab, 1914.

133. The Tribune, 11 July 1914. Native Newspaper Reports, Punjab, 1914-

134. Secretary of State for India to Viceroy 6 August 1914. Commerce and Industry Department, Emigration B, August 1914, Nos. 10-14. Even a Canadian writer Mackey was of the same view. He blamed the Indian revolutionaries in India and Canada for the Komagata Maru enterprise and why had deliberately advised their fellow countrymen to make this spectacular attempt to breakdown our regulations.” Mackey, “Problems of Immigration VII. Komagata Maru,” West- minster Hall Magazine and Farthest West Review , Vol. V, No. 6, July 1914.

135. The Tribune , 23 July 1914. Native Newspapers Reports , Punjab, 1914.

136. William Vincent to Secretary Home Department, 3 Dec. 1914. Home Political A, March 1915, Nos. 1-13 N.A.I.

137. Randhir Singh, op. cit., p. 12. When Komagata Maru left Kobe, the British Ambassador warned the Government of India that these Indians intended to make trouble on arrival in India. British Ambassador in Japan to Government of India, 3 September 1914. F.O. 371/2158/ 1914. PRO.

138. Baba Sohan Singh Bhakna before he left America was entrusted by the Ghadr Party with 100 pistols which he was to make over to Gurdit Singh for use of Komagata Maru passengers. Ghadr Directory , p. 272. It appears that the Ghadr Party had a scheme of sending a consignment of arms and ammunition through the passengers of Komagata Maru. However, Tarak Nath Das who was entrusted with the task was arrested by the Canadian authorities while trying to smuggle arms and ammunition into Canada for conveyance to India by the passengers of Komagata Maru. D. Petrie, Communism in India, 1924-27 (Calcutta, 1927), p. 337.

139. Hardinge to Crewe, 15 October 1914. Hardinge Papers.

140. Michael O’ Dwyer, India As I Knew It / 88 5 1925 (London, 1925), p. 194

141. “Memorandum on German Connection with Indian Sedition.” Home Political Deposit, October 1915, No. 43. N.A.I.

142. The Khalsa Advocate, 31 January 1914. Native Newspaper Reports, Punjab, 1914.

143. “A review of seditious and revolutionary activity in the Panjab showing the measures adopted to combat them (hereafter referred to as a review of revolutionary activity in the Punjab). Home Political B, July 1918, Nos. 292-316. N A-I.  
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 27302
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Wed Mar 27, 2019 2:49 am

Myron Henry Phelps
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 3/26/19

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Francis Cunliffe Owen, the officer heading the Home Office agency in New York, had become thoroughly acquainted with George Freeman alias Fitzgerald and Myron Phelps, the famous New York advocate, as members of the Clan-na-Gael.

-- Hindu–German Conspiracy, by Wikipedia


Image

Myron Henry Phelps (Lewiston, Fulton County, Illinois, 2 April 1856 - Bombay, 29 December 1916) was a New York lawyer and religious writer who studied the Bahā'ī Faith and the Radha Soami movement, and supported India House in Manhattan.[1] His biography of Abdu'l-Bahā is still read today, as well as Phelps' Notes, his transcription of Mādhav Prasād Sinha's talks that is standard fare in the literature of the Radhasoami Satsang of Soami Bagh, Agra.[5]

Interest in Buddhism

Phelps was also interested in Buddhism.[2] He had a secret "spiritual marriage" to Miranda de Souza Canavarro (Sister Sanghamitta) (1849-1933) formerly the wife of the Portuguese ambassador to Sandwich Islands, and the first woman to convert to Buddhism on American soil (in 1897).[3][4]

Visit to `Abdu'l-Bahā

Phelps and Sanghamitta visited `Abdu'l-Bahā in ‘Akkā and stayed with "the Master" for over a month, questioning him extensively.[5] Except for a brief incident wherein Sanghamitta got extremely irritated and vocal with a translator,[6] the visit was cordial and fruitful and resulted in Phelps's biography of `Abdu'l-Bahā (dedicated to M.A. de S. Canavarro). The work has been well-known among Bahā'īs for nearly a century, and is especially popular for its precious documentation of recollections by Bahiyyih Khánum, "The Greatest Holy Leaf"—but it is not regarded as authoritative since it's colored by Phelps's opinions which divert from `Abdu'l-Bahā's.

Works

• 1903, 1912, Life and Teachings of Abbas Effendi, New York & London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1903, 1904, 1912; University of California Libraries, 1912; McMaster, 2007; Kessinger, 2007, 2008, 2010; BiblioBazaar, 2009; Nabu, 2011; HardPress, 2012; Forgotten, 2012. ISBN 1113802219. ISBN 978-1113802217. ISBN 9781164335450. ISBN 9781113802255. ISBN 9781436585514.
• Master in ‘Akká, including the recollections of the Greatest Holy Leaf, revised and annotated by Marzieh Gail, Los Angeles: Kalimát, 1985. ISBN 0933770499. ISBN 978-0933770492.
• Phelps’ Notes of discourses on Radhasoami Faith delivered by Babuji Maharaj in 1913-14, Soami Bagh, Agra: Radhasoami Satsang.
• The Gurukula Through European Eyes, Kangri, 1917.
• Hindu Ideals and Their Preservation. [6]
• The Value of Hinduism for Hindus.
• Die wirkliche Natur der Bahá'í-Religion, Stuttgart: Weltunion fuer universale Religion und universalen Frieden, 1961.

References

1. Obituary Record of Graduates of Yale University... Yale University - 1917 - Page 644 Myron Henry Phelps, B.A. 1876 Born April 2, 1856, in Lewiston, Ill. Died December 29, 1916, in Bombay, India Myron Henry Phelps was the son of Major George Phelps and Cornelia (Rogers) Phelps and was born April 2, 1856, at Lewiston, ...
2. Stockman, Robert, Notes on the Thornton Chase Papers[1]: "Myron Phelps... is an ardent admirer of Ramanathan of Columbo, Ceylon ... Sister Sanghamitta's Buddhist teacher."
3. Thomas A. Tweed, The American Encounter with Buddhism, 1844-1912, 1992, Page 87: "21 Canavarro transgressed the boundaries of Victorian social norms even more clearly and forcefully, however, when she began her secret "spiritual marriage" to Myron Henry Phelps (1856-1916), the Buddhist sympathizer, New York attorney"
4. Stockman, Robert, Notes on the Thornton Chase Papers[2]: "Chase... describes two visits with Sister Sanghamitta and Dr. Phelps at their farm in N.J."
5. [3]
6. [4]

Categories:

• 1856 births
• 1916 deaths
• American Buddhists
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 27302
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Wed Mar 27, 2019 2:51 am

Miranda de Souza Canavarro
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 3/26/19

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image

Image

Miranda de Souza Canavarro (1849-1933) was notable as the first woman to convert to Buddhism on American soil (in 1897) and later a Buddhist nun in Ceylon. She became known as Sister Sanghamitta, while in America she was often known as Marie. She was the wife of the Portuguese ambassador to Sandwich Islands, who began a secret "spiritual marriage" to New York attorney and Buddhist sympathizer Myron Henry Phelps.[1] She converted to Buddhism in 1897 under the discipleship of Anagarika Dharmapala, then moved to Ceylon as Sister Sanghamitta.[2][3]

References

1. Thomas A. Tweed The American Encounter with Buddhism: 1844 - 1912 1992 Page 87 "21 Canavarro transgressed the boundaries of Victorian social norms even more clearly and forcefully, however, when she began her secret "spiritual marriage" to Myron Henry Phelps (1856-1916), the Buddhist sympathizer, New York attorney"
2. John Holt The Sri Lanka Reader: History, Culture, Politics 2011 - - Page 367 "Countess Miranda de Souza Carnavarro, briefly known as Sanghamitta, was an American theosophist and wealthy socialite who converted to Buddhism in 1897 under the discipleship of the Anagarika Dharmapala. Under Dharmapala's ..."
3. Bartholomeusz, Tessa, "Real Life and Romance: The Life of Miranda de Souza Canavarro," in Feminist Studies in Religion, volume 10, number 2, 1994.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 27302
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Wed Mar 27, 2019 2:58 am

Anagarika Dharmapala
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 3/26/19

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


7th General Conference
Date: 29 November - 4 December B.E. 2507 (1964)
Venue: Sarnath and Varanasi, India

Sarnath, Varanasi in India was chosen as the venue of the conference because it is where Śākyamuni delivered his first sermon which came to be known as the turning of the Wheel of the Law, the Dharmacakra. It was also as tribute to the Centenary of the birth of the late Venerable Anāgārika Dharmapāla who was the pioneer of the Buddhist revival in India and the first Buddhist missionary to visit Europe and America that spread Buddhism beyond Asia.

-- The World Fellowship of Buddhists (The WFB) [World Buddhist Conference], by http://wfbhq.org


Image
Anagarika Dharmapāla
අනගාරික ධර්මපාල
Anagarika Dharmapala.jpg
Srimath Anagarika Dharmapāla
Born 17 September 1864
Matara, Ceylon
Died 29 April 1934 (aged 69)
Sarnath, India
Nationality Sinhalese
Other names Don David Hewavitarane
Education Christian College, Kotte,
St Benedict's College, Kotahena,
S. Thomas' College, Mutwal,
Colombo Academy
Known for Sri Lankan independence movement,
revival of Buddhism,
Representing Buddhism in the Parliament of World Religions(1893) / Buddhist missionary work in three continents
Parent(s) Don Carolis Hewavitharana
Mallika Dharmagunawardhana
Signature
Srimath Anagarika Dharmapala Signature.svg

Anagārika Dharmapāla (Pali: Anagārika, [ɐˈnɐɡaːɽɪkɐ]; Sinhalese: Anagarika, lit., Sinhalese: අනගාරික ධර්මපාල; 17 September 1864 – 29 April 1934) was a Sri Lankan (Sinhalese) Buddhist revivalist and writer. He was the first global Buddhist missionary. He was one of the founding contributors of non-violent Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism and Buddhism. He was also a pioneer in the revival of Buddhism in India after it had been virtually extinct there for several centuries, and he was the first Buddhist in modern times to preach the Dharma in three continents: Asia, North America, and Europe. Along with Henry Steel Olcott and Helena Blavatsky, the creators of the Theosophical Society, he was a major reformer and revivalist of Sinhala Buddhism and an important figure in its western transmission. He also inspired a mass movement of South Indian Dalits including Tamils to embrace Buddhism, half a century before B. R. Ambedkar.[1] At the latter stages of his life, he entered the order of Buddhist monks as Venerable Sri Devamitta Dharmapala.[2]

Early life and education

Image
Srimath Anagarika Dharmapala at the age of 29 (1893)

Anagarika Dharmapala was born on 17 September 1864 in Matara, Ceylon to Don Carolis Hewavitharana of Hiththetiya, Matara and Mallika Dharmagunawardhana (the daughter of Andiris Perera Dharmagunawardhana), who were among the richest merchants of Ceylon at the time. He was named Don David Hewavitharane. His younger brothers were Dr Charles Alwis Hewavitharana and Edmund Hewavitarne. He attended Christian College, Kotte; St Benedict's College, Kotahena; S. Thomas' College, Mutwal[3][4] and the Colombo Academy (Royal College).

Buddhist revival

This was a time of Buddhist revival. In 1875 in New York City, Madame Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott had founded the Theosophical Society. They were both very sympathetic to what they understood of Buddhism, and in 1880 they arrived in Ceylon, declared themselves to be Buddhists, and publicly took the Refuges and Precepts from a prominent Sinhalese bhikkhu. Colonel Olcott kept coming back to Ceylon and devoted himself there to the cause of Buddhist education, eventually setting up more than 300 Buddhist schools, some of which are still in existence. It was in this period that Hewavitarne changed his name to Anagarika Dharmapala.

'Dharmapāla' means 'protector of the dharma'. 'Anagārika' in Pāli means "homeless one". It is a midway status between monk and layperson. As such, he took the eight precepts (refrain from killing, stealing, sexual activity, wrong speech, intoxicating drinks and drugs, eating after noon, entertainments and fashionable attire, and luxurious beds) for life. These eight precepts were commonly taken by Ceylonese laypeople on observance days.[5] But for a person to take them for life was highly unusual. Dharmapala was the first anagarika – that is, a celibate, full-time worker for Buddhism – in modern times. It seems that he took a vow of celibacy at the age of eight and remained faithful to it all his life. Although he wore a yellow robe, it was not of the traditional bhikkhu pattern, and he did not shave his head. He felt that the observance of all the vinaya rules would get in the way of his work, especially as he flew around the world. Neither the title nor the office became popular, but in this role, he "was the model for lay activism in modernist Buddhism."[6] He is considered a bodhisattva in Sri Lanka.[7]

His trip to Bodh-Gaya was inspired by an 1885 visit there by Sir Edwin Arnold, author of The Light of Asia, who soon started advocating for the renovation of the site and its return to Buddhist care.[8][9] Arnold was directed towards this endeavour by Weligama Sri Sumangala Thera.[10][11]

At the invitation of Paul Carus, he returned to the U.S. in 1896, and again in 1902–04, where he traveled and taught widely.[12]

Dharmapala eventually broke with Olcott and the Theosophists because of Olcott's stance on universal religion. "One of the important factors in his rejection of theosophy centered on this issue of universalism; the price of Buddhism being assimilated into a non-Buddhist model of truth was ultimately too high for him."[13] Dharmapala stated that Theosophy was "only consolidating Krishna worship."[14] "To say that all religions have a common foundation only shows the ignorance of the speaker; Dharma alone is supreme to the Buddhist"[15]

Image
Statue of Angarika Dharamapalan in Sarnath

At Sarnath in 1933 he was ordained a bhikkhu, and he died at Sarnath in December of the following year, aged 69.

Religious contribution

Image
A Letter Written By Srimath Dharmapala in 23 June 1902 to a Friend in Japan.

The young Dharmapala helped Colonel Olcott in his work, particularly by acting as his translator. Dharmapala also became quite close to Madame Blavatsky, who advised him to study Pāli and to work for the good of humanity – which is what he did. It was at this time that he changed his name to Dharmapala (meaning "Guardian of the Dharma").

In 1891 Anagarika Dharmapala was on a pilgrimage to the recently restored Mahabodhi Temple, where Siddhartha Gautama – the Buddha – attained enlightenment at Bodh Gaya, India.[16] Here he experienced a shock to find the temple in the hands of a Saivite priest, the Buddha image transformed into a Hindu icon and Buddhists barred from worship. As a result, he began an agitation movement.[17]

The Maha Bodhi Society at Colombo was founded in 1891 but its offices were soon moved to Calcutta the following year in 1892. One of its primary aims was the restoration to Buddhist control of the Mahabodhi Temple at Bodh Gaya, the chief of the four ancient Buddhist holy sites.[18][19] To accomplish this, Dharmapala initiated a lawsuit against the Brahmin priests who had held control of the site for centuries.[18][19] After a protracted struggle, this was successful only after Indian independence (1947) and sixteen years after Dharmapala's own death (1933), with the partial restoration of the site to the management of the Maha Bodhi Society in 1949.
It was then the temple management of Bodh Gaya was entrusted to a committee comprised in equal numbers of Hindus and Buddhists.[18][19] A statue of Anagarika Dharmapala was established in College Square near Kolkata Maha Bodhi Society.[/b]

Image
Anagarika on a 2014 stamp of India

Maha Bodhi Society centers were set up in many Indian cities, and this had the effect of raising Indian consciousness about Buddhism. Converts were made mostly among the educated, but also among some low caste Indians in the south.[20]

Due to the efforts of Dharmapala, the site of the Buddha's parinibbana (physical death) at Kushinagar has once again become a major attraction for Buddhists, as it was for many centuries previously. Mahabodhi Movement in 1890s held the Muslim Rule in India responsible for the decay of Buddhism in India.[16][21][22] Anagarika Dharmapala did not hesitate to lay the chief blame for the decline of Buddhism in India at the door of Muslim fanaticism.[23]

In 1893 Dharmapala was invited to attend the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago as a representative of "Southern Buddhism" – which was the term applied at that time to the Theravada. There he met Swami Vivekananda and got on very well with him. Like Swami Vivekananda, he was a great success at the Parliament and received a fair bit of media attention. By his early thirties he was already a global figure, continuing to travel and give lectures and establish viharas around the world during the next forty years. At the same time he concentrated on establishing schools and hospitals in Ceylon and building temples and viharas in India. Among the most important of the temples he built was one at Sarnath, where the Buddha first taught. On returning to India via Hawaii, he met Mary E. Foster, a descendant of King Kamehameha who had emotional problems. Dharmapala consoled her using Buddhist techniques; in return, she granted him an enormous donation of over one million rupees (over $2.7 million in 2010 dollars, but worth much more due to low labor costs in India). In 1897 he converted Miranda de Souza Canavarro who as "Sister Sanghamitta" came to establish a school in Ceylon.

Dharmapala's voluminous diaries have been published, and he also wrote some memoirs.

Dharmapala, science, and Protestant Buddhism

The term 'Protestant Buddhism,' coined by scholar Gananath Obeyesekere, is often applied to Dharmapala's form of Buddhism. It is Protestant in two ways. First, it is influenced by Protestant ideals such as freedom from religious institutions, freedom of conscience, and focus on individual interior experience. Second, it is in itself a protest against claims of Christian superiority, colonialism, and Christian missionary work aimed at weakening Buddhism. "Its salient characteristic is the importance it assigns to the laity."[24] It arose among the new, literate, middle class centered in Colombo.

The term 'Buddhist modernism' is used to describe forms of Buddhism that suited the modern world, usually influenced by European enlightenment thinking, and often adapted by Asian Buddhists as a counter to claims of European or Christian superiority. Buddhist modernists emphasize certain aspects of traditional Buddhism, while de-emphasizing others.[25] Some of the characteristics of Buddhist modernism are: importance of the laity as against the sangha; rationality and de-emphasis of supernatural and mythological aspects; consistency with (and anticipation of) modern science; emphasis on spontaneity, creativity, and intuition; democratic, anti-institutional character; emphasis on meditation over devotional and ceremonial actions.[25]

Dharmapala is an excellent example of an Asian Buddhist modernist, and perhaps the paradigmatic example of Protestant Buddhism. He was particularly concerned with presenting Buddhism as consistent with science, especially the theory of evolution.[26]

Survey of writings

Most of Dharmapala's works are collected in Return to Righteousness: A Collection of Speeches, Essays, and Letters of the Anagarika Dharmapala. (Edited by Ananda Guruge. Colombo: Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs, 1965).

The World's Debt to Buddha (1893)

Image
Anagarika Dharmapala at the Parliament of World Religions. From left to right: Virchand Gandhi, Anagarika Dharmapala, Swami Vivekananda, and G. Bonet Maury.

This paper was read to a crowded session of the Parliament of World Religions in Chicago, 18 September 1893. At this early stage of his career, Dharmapala was concerned with making Buddhism palatable to his Western audience. This talk is full of references to science, the European Enlightenment, and Christianity. While presenting Buddhism in these familiar terms, he also hints that it is superior to any philosophy of the West. In addition, he spends considerable time discussing the ideal Buddhist polity under Ashoka and the Buddha's ethics for laypeople.

BUDDHA SHAKYAMUNI'S SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS

The basic teachings of Buddha Shakyamuni are well-known, so suffice it to . say, there is nothing in either the Four Noble Truths or the Holy Eightfold Path to suggest support for the use of violence, let alone warfare. On the contrary, two admonitions in the Holy Eightfold Path -"right action" and "right livelihood" - clearly indicate the very opposite.

Right action promotes moral, honorable, and peaceful conduct. It admonishes the believer to abstain from destroying life, from stealing, from dishonest dealings, and from illegitimate sexual intercourse. Instead, the believer should help others lead peaceful and honorable lives.

Right livelihood means that one should abstain from making one's living through a profession that brings harm to others, such as selling arms and lethal weapons, providing intoxicating drink or poisons, or soldiering, killing animals, or cheating. Instead, one should live in a way that does not cause harm or do injustice to others.

Together with right speech, right action and right livelihood form the basis for Buddhist ethical conduct. Underlying all Buddhist ethical conduct is a broad conception of universal love and compassion for all living beings, both human and nonhuman. Thus, based on these fundamental teachings of Shakyamuni, Buddhist adherents could in theory no more participate in that form of mass human slaughter known as "war" than they could purposely take the life of another. Yet ideals and practice often parted ways, as we will explore next.

LIFE OF THE BUDDHA

In accordance with the religious norms of his day, Shakyamuni offered advice on secular as well as purely spiritual matters. One example concerns a dispute that arose over the division of water from the drought-stricken Rohini River, which flowed between two kingdoms, one of them his own homeland of Kapilavastu. It is recorded that when the quarrel reached the point where a battle seemed imminent, Shakyamuni proceeded to the proposed battlefield and took his seat on the riverbank. He asked why the princes of the two kingdoms were assembled, and when informed that they were preparing for battle, he asked what the dispute was about. The princes said that they didn't know for sure, and they, in turn, asked the commander- in-chief. He also didn't know and sought information from the regent; and so the enquiry went on until it reached the husbandmen who related the whole affair. "What then is the value of water?" asked Shakyamuni. "It is but little," replied the princes. "And what of princes?" "It cannot be measured," they said. "Then would you," said Shakyamuni, "destroy that which is of the highest value for the sake of that which is worth little?" Reflecting on the wisdom of his words, the princes agreed to return peaceably to their homes.1

Another example of Shakyamuni's political intervention is said to have occurred in his seventy-ninth year, shortly before his death. King Ajatasattu of Magadha wished to make war on the tribal confederation of Vajji, so he sent an emissary to ask Shakyamuni what his chances of victory were. Shakyamuni declared that he himself had taught the Vajjians the conditions of true welfare, and as he was informed that the Vajjians were continuing to observe these conditions, he foretold that they would not be defeated. Upon hearing this, Ajatasattu abandoned his plan to attack.

Significantly, the first of the seven conditions Shakyamuni had taught the Vajjians was that they must "hold frequent public assemblies:' Secondly, they must "meet in concord, rise in concord, and act as they are supposed to do in concord."2 As a noted scholar pointed out, these conditions represent "a truly democratic approach," and "any society following these rules is likely to prosper and remain peaceful."3

A. L. Basham suggests that incidents like these demonstrate Shakyamuni's clear support for a republican form of government, though with the caveat that we are speaking of a form of governance in which there was an executive- sometimes elected, sometimes hereditary-supported by an assembly of heads of families that gathered periodically to make decisions relating to the common welfare.4 Restated in more contemporary terminology, Shakyamuni advocated a political model approaching a small-scale, direct -democracy,-though it is also clear that he did not-deny his counsel to the kings of the rising monarchies of his day.

Other elements of Shakyamuni's stance on violence are illustrated in the lead-up to an attack on his homeland by King Vidudabha of Kosala, the most powerful of the sixteen major kingdoms of his time. Shakyamuni recognized that this time the nature of the feud was such that his words would not be heeded, and he did not attempt to intervene. But even when the very existence of his homeland was at stake, Shakyamuni, his warrior background notwithstanding, refused to take up arms in its defense.

Shakyamuni's teaching on warfare and violence is perhaps best clarified in the Dhammapada, a Pali canonical work. In chapter 1, stanza 1, for example, Shakyamuni states: "For never does hatred cease by hatred here below: hatred ceases by love; this is an eternal law." And again, in chapter 15, stanza 201: "Victory breeds hatred, for the conquered is unhappy. The person who has given up both victory and defeat, that person, contented, is happy." In chapter 10, stanza 129, he says: ''All persons tremble at being harmed, all persons fear death; remembering that you are like unto them, neither strike nor slay." And finally, in chapter 8, stanza 103: "If someone conquers in battle a thousand times a thousand enemies, and if another conquers himself, that person is the greatest of conquerors."5 While scholars doubt these admonitions came directly from Shakyamuni's lips, the admonitions are, nevertheless, entirely consistent with his earliest and most fundamental teachings.

Two further aspects of Shakyamuni's teachings are worthy of mention. First, he was concerned about what we would today call social justice. For example, in the Pali Cakkavattisihanada Sutta of the Digha Nikaya (no. 26), Shakyamuni clearly identified poverty as the cause of violence and other social ills:

As a result of goods not being accrued to those who are destitute, poverty becomes rife. From poverty becoming rife, stealing, ... violence, ... murder, ... lying, ... evil speech, ... adultery, ... incest, till finally lack of respect for parents, filial love, religious piety and lack of regard for the ruler will result.


Likewise, in the Kutadanta Sutta of the same Nikaya (no. 5), Shakyamuni praised a king named Mahavijita who, faced with an upsurge of robbery in his impoverished kingdom, provided his subjects with the economic means to improve their lives rather than imprisoning and executing the wrongdoers.6

THE EARLY BUDDHIST SANGHA AND THE STATE

Also important is the political or social dimension of the religious organization that Buddha Shakyamuni founded, the Sangha, that is, the community of monks and nuns (organized separately) dedicated to practicing his teachings. Primarily religious in nature, it embodied his concept of an ideal society.

The Sangha was based on noncoercive, nonauthoritarian principles by which leadership was acquired through superior moral character and spiritual insight, and monastic affairs were managed by a general meeting of the monks (or nuns). Unlike a modern business meeting, however, all decisions required the unanimous consent of those assembled. When differences could not be settled, a committee of elders was charged with finding satisfactory solutions.

Ideally, the Sangha was to be an organization that had no political ambitions and in whose ranks there was no striving for leadership. It sought by example and exhortation to persuade men and women to follow its way, not by force. Further, by his completely eliminating the then-prevalent caste system from its ranks, Shakyamuni may rightly be considered one of recorded history's first leaders to practice his belief in the basic equality of all human beings. He clearly hoped that the religious and social ideals of the Sangha would one day permeate the whole of society. This said, the historical subordination of the female Sangha to the male Sangha, through the imposition of eight additional precepts for nuns, betrays the ideal of human equality and points to the existence of a sexist attitude that may date back to Shakyamuni himself.

It is also true that even during the Buddha's lifetime, his Sangha became a wealthy landowner, though the lands referred to were held as the communal property of the various monastic communities.7 The lands themselves had all been donated by the faithful, initially kings, princes, and rich merchants. This raises the question as to what the donors expected of the Sangha in return for their material support. The classic answer is that they expected to acquire "merit," that spiritual reward that promises rebirth in a blessed state to all those who perform good deeds. As one Pali sutra relates, however, the accumulation of merit by the laity can also lead to the more immediate and mundane goals of "long life, fame, heavenly fortune, and sovereign power [italics mine]."8 The fact that King Ajatasattu also looked to Buddha Shakyamuni to forecast the likelihood of his victory against the Vajjians is significant here. Significant, in that it was already widely believed in ancient India that accomplished "holy men" possessed superhuman powers, including the ability to foresee the future.

Related questions are what effect the Sangha's collective possession of ever-greater amounts of land had on its own conduct, and equally important, whether as a major landholder it could fail in its actions and pronouncements to escape the notice and concern of state rulers. Would it be surprising to learn that these rulers also expected something in return for their material support of the Sangha, something approaching a moral endorsement of their rule, or the acquisition of merit, or the utilization of the supposed superhuman powers of Buddhist priests (and sutras) to protect the state from its enemies or ensure victory in battle?

KING ASHOKA-THE "IDEAL" BUDDHIST RULER?

If in the long run the Sangha willingly provided rulers with a moral endorsement, that endorsement was initially given only on the basis that rulers fulfill certain prerequisites or conditions. These conditions were contained in the Jataka stories, five hundred Indian folk tales that had been given a Buddhist didactic purpose and were incorporated into the Pali Buddhist canon sometime before the beginning of the Christian era. Among these tales we find a description of the "Ten Duties of the King," which include, among other things, the requirement that rulers abstain from anything that involves violence and destruction of life. Rulers are further exhorted to be free from selfishness, hatred, and falsehood, and to be ready to give up all personal comfort, reputation, fame, and even their very life if need be to promote the welfare of the people. Furthermore, it was the responsibility of kings to provide (1) grain and other facilities for agriculture to farmers and cultivators, (2) capital for traders and those engaged in business, and (3) adequate wages for those who were employed. When people are provided with sufficient income, they will be contented and have no fear or anxiety. Consequently, their countries will be peaceful and free from crime.9

It was, of course, one thing to present kingly duties in the abstract and another to find kings who actually practiced them. Buddhists discovered one such ruler in the person of King Ashoka (ca. 269-32 B.C.E.), who already controlled much of India at the time of his accession to the throne. Prior to converting to Buddhism, Ashoka is said to have engaged in wars of expansion until the bloodiness of his conquest of the kingdom of Kalinga caused him to repent and become a Buddhist layman, forswearing the use of violence. He then embarked upon a "Reign of Dharma" in which he advocated such moral precepts as nonharming, respect for all religious teachers, and noncovetousness.

In addition to renouncing aggressive warfare, Ashoka is said to have urged moderation in spending and accumulation of wealth, kind treatment of servants and slaves, cessation of animal sacrifices for religious purposes, and various other maxims, all carved as inscriptions and royal edicts on cliff faces and stone pillars throughout his vast realm, which extended almost the entire length and breadth of the Indian subcontinent. Further, he appointed officers known as Superintendents of Dharma for the propagation of religion, and arranged for regular preaching tours. Realizing the effectiveness of exhortation over legislation, he is said to have preached the Dharma on occasion. Ashoka become the archetypal Buddhist ruler, an ideal or Universal Monarch (see chapter 7).

As opposed to this idealized portrait, Indian historian A. L. Basham has pointed to another side of King Ashoka. For example, Ashoka maintained an army and used force against tribal groups that clashed with his empire. Beyond that, one Buddhist description of his life, the Sanskrit Ashokavandana, records that he ordered eighteen thousand non-Buddhist adherents, probably Jains, executed because of a minor insult to Buddhism on the part of single one. On another occasion, he forced a Jain follower and his entire family into their house before having it burnt to the ground. He also maintained the death penalty for criminals, including his own wife, Tisyaraksit whom he executed. In light of these and similar acts, we can say that Ashoka was an archetypal "defender of the faith" who was not averse to the use of violence.

Nor did King Ashoka's remorse at having killed over 100,000 inhabitants of Kalinga lead him to restore its freedom or that of any other of his earlier conquests. Instead, he continued to govern them all as an integral part of hi empire, for "he by no means gave up his imperial ambitions."10 In fact, inasmuch as many of his edicts mention only support for Dharma, (a pan-Indian politico-religious term) and not the Buddha Dharma, it is possible to argue that he used Dharma not so much out of allegiance to the Buddhist faith and its ideals, but as a means to centralize power, maintain unity among his disparate peoples, and promote law and order throughout the empire.

At the very least, in promoting Buddhism throughout India, Ashoka Was clearly also promoting his own kingship and establishing himself.11 That is to say, an alliance of politics and religion had been born. This is important to note because while Ashoka may have been the first to use Buddhism and the (Buddha) Dharma for what we would today identify as political purposes, he was hardly the last, as we shall see shortly when we examine the development of Buddhism in China and Japan.

A noted Indian political philosopher, Vishwanath Prasad Varma, pointed out that due to King Ashoka's royal patronage, "the Sangha became contaminated with regal and aristocratic affiliations."12 Similarly, the pioneer Buddhist scholar T. W. Rhys Davids remarked that it was the Sangha's close affiliation with King Ashoka that was "the first step on the downward path of Buddhism, the first step on its expulsion from India."13

What is certain is that Ashoka enjoyed a great deal of power over the Sangha. For example, a second Buddhist record of Ashoka's life, the Pali Mahavamsa, states that Ashoka was, with the aid of the great elder Moggaliputta Tissa, responsible for defrocking sixty thousand Sangha members who were found to harbor "false views."14 Ashoka had the power to prescribe passages from the sutras that Sangha members were required to study. Those who failed to do so could be defrocked by his officers.15 In fact, it became necessary to receive Ashoka's permission even to enter the priesthood.16 In short, during Ashoka's reign, if not before, the Raja Dharma (Law of the Sovereign) became deeply involved in, if not yet in full command of, the Buddha Dharma. This too was a harbinger of things to come.

In this connection, both Basham and Rhys Davids identified the concept of a so-called Universal Monarch, or Cakravartin (Wheel-Turning King), as coming into prominence within Buddhist circles only after the reign of Ashoka's father, Candragupta, who ascended the throne sometime at the end of the fourth century B.C.E,17 Thus, the idea of a Universal Monarch, who served as the protector of the Buddha Dharma and as the recipient of the Dharma's protection, did not originate as a teaching of Buddha Shakyamuni himself. Instead, it is best understood as a later accretion that "'was an inspiration to ambitious monarchs, ... some [of whom] claimed to be Universal Monarchs themselves."18 It is also significant that as a Universal Monarch and Dharma Protector, Ashoka was accorded the personal title of Dharma Raja (Dharma King), a title he shared with Buddha Shakyamuni,19 This "sharing of titles" would play an important role in China.

-- Chapter 12: Was it Buddhism?, Zen at War, Second Edition, by Brian Daizen Victoria


The Constructive Optimism of Buddhism (1915)

Buddhism was often portrayed in the West, especially by Christian missionaries, as pessimistic, nihilistic, and passive. One of Dharmapala's main concerns was to counter such claims, and this concern is especially evident in this essay.

Message of the Buddha (1925)

In the later stages of his career, Dharmapala's vociferous anti-Christian tone is more evident. Dharmapala must be understood in the context of British colonization of Ceylon and the presence of Christian missionaries there. This work is a good example of "Protestant Buddhism," as described above.

Evolution from the Standpoint of Buddhism (1926)

Darwin's theory of evolution was the cutting edge of science during Dharmapala's life. As part of his attempt to show that Buddhism is consistent with modern science, he was especially concerned with evolution.

Contributions to Sinhalese Buddhist Nationalism

Dharmapala was one of the primary contributors to the Buddhist revival of the 19th century that led to the creation of Buddhist institutions to match those of the missionaries (schools, the YMBA, etc.), and to the independence movement of the 20th century. DeVotta characterizes his rhetoric as having four main points: "(i) Praise – for Buddhism and the Sinhalese culture; (ii) Blame – on the British imperialists, those who worked for them including Christians; (iii) Fear – that Buddhism in Sri Lanka was threatened with extinction; and (iv) Hope – for a rejuvenated Sinhalese Buddhist ascendancy" (78). He illustrated the first three points in a public speech:

This bright, beautiful island was made into a Paradise by the Aryan Sinhalese before its destruction was brought about by the barbaric vandals. Its people did not know irreligion ... Christianity and polytheism [i.e. Hinduism] are responsible for the vulgar practices of killing animals, stealing, prostitution, licentiousness, lying and drunkenness ... The ancient, historic, refined people, under the diabolism of vicious paganism, introduced by the British administrators, are now declining slowly away.[27]


He once praised the normal Tamil vadai seller for his courage and blamed the Sinhalese people who were lazy and called upon them to rise. He strongly protested against the killing of cattle and eating of beef. In short, Dharmapala's reasons for rejecting British imperialism were not political or economic. They were religious: above all, the Sinhala nation is the historical custodian of Buddhism.[citation needed]

One of the manifestation of the new intolerance took place in 1915 against some Ceylonese Muslims. Successful retail traders became the target of their Shinhala competitors.[28] In 1912 Darmapala wrote:

The Muhammedans, an alien people, ... by shylockian methods become prosperous like Jews. The Sinhala sons of the soil, whose ancestors for 2358 years had shed rivers of blood to keep the country free of alien invaders ... are in the eyes of the British only vagabonds. The Alien South Indian Muhammedan come to Ceylon, sees the neglected villager, without any experience in trade ... and the result is that the Muhammedan thrives and the sons of the soil go to the wall.[29]


In short, Dharmapala and his associates very much encouraged and contributed to something aptly called the "ethnocratic state."[28]

Dharmapala believed that Sinhalese are a pure Aryan race with unmixed blood. He claimed that Sinhalese women must take care and to avoid Mischling with minority races of the country.[30] According to Ranga Jayasuriya of news paper Daily Mirror, Anagarika Darmapala exploited liberal leanings of the Colonial British to espouse his border line racism. Jayasuriya also states that Dharmapala would not have survived had it been the French, the Dutch, Belgian or any other colonizer.[31]

Legacy

In 2014, India and Sri Lanka issued postage stamps to mark the 150th birth anniversary of Dharmapala.[32] In Colombo, a road has been named in his honour as "Anagarika Dharmapala Mawatha" (Angarika Dharmapala Street).[33][34]

See also

• Buddhism and Theosophy
• Humanistic Buddhism
• Neo-Vedanta
• Walisinghe Harischandra

References

1. ^ "Taking the Dhamma to the Dalits". The Sunday Times. Sri Lanka. 14 September 2014.
2. ^ Epasinghe, Premasara (19 September 2013). "The Dharmapala legacy". Daily News. Archived from the original on 12 September 2014. Retrieved 18 September 2014.
3. ^ Anagarika Dharmapala – a noble son of Sri Lanka Archived25 June 2016 at the Wayback Machine
4. ^ Anagarika Dharmapala :The patriot who propagated Buddhism Archived 3 July 2013 at Archive.today
5. ^ Harvey, p. 208.
6. ^ Harvey, p. 205
7. ^ McMahan, p. 291.
8. ^ Harvey, p. 303
9. ^ Maha Bodhi Society: Founders
10. ^ India Revisited by Sri Edwin Arnold Archived 25 March 2012 at the Wayback Machine
11. ^ Barua, Dipak Kumar (1981). Buddha Gaya Temple: Its History. Buddha Gaya Temple Management Committee.
12. ^ Harvey, p. 307
13. ^ McMahan, p. 111
14. ^ Prothero, p. 167.
15. ^ Prothero, p. 172
16. ^ :a b The Maha-Bodhi By Maha Bodhi Society, Calcutta (page 205)
17. ^ O'Reilly, Sean and O'Reilly, James (2000) Pilgrimage: Adventures of the Spirit, Travelers' Tales. pp. 81–82. ISBN 978-1-885211-56-9.
18. ^ :a b c Wright, Arnold (1999) Twentieth Century Impressions of Ceylon: its history, people, commerce, industries, and resources, "Angarika Dharmapala", Asian Educational Services. p. 119. ISBN 978-81-206-1335-5
19. ^ :a b c Bleeker, C. J. and Widengren, G. (1971) Historia Religionum, Volume 2 Religions of the Present: Handbook for the History of Religions, Brill Academic Publishers. p. 453. ISBN 978-90-04-02598-1
20. ^ Harvey, p. 297
21. ^ "A Close View of Encounter between British Burma and British Bengal" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 June 2007. Retrieved 27 September 2015.
22. ^ The Maha-Bodhi By Maha Bodhi Society, Calcutta (page 58)
23. ^ Wadia, Ardeshir Ruttonji (1958). The Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi: And Other Essays Philosophical and Sociological. University of Mysore. p. 483.
24. ^ Gombrich, Richard F. (1988). Theravada Buddhism; A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul. p. 174. ISBN 978-0415365093
25. ^ :a b McMahan, pp. 4–5
26. ^ McMahan, pp. 91–97
27. ^ Dharmapala, Anagarika (1965). Return to Righteousness: A Collection of Speeches, Essays, and Letters of the Anagarika Dharmapala. Anagarika Dharmapala Birth Centenary Committee, Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs, Ceylon. p. 482.
28. ^ :a b Little, David (1994). Sri Lanka: The Invention of Enmity. United States Institute of Peace Press. p. 32. ISBN 978-1-878379-15-3.
29. ^ Jayawardena, Kumari (1985). Ethnic and Class Conflicts in Sri Lanka: Some Aspects of Sinhala Buddhist Consciousness Over the Past 100 Years. Centre for Social Analysis. pp. 27–29.
30. ^ Sunil, Wijesiriwardhana (2010) Purawasi Manpeth. FLICT. pp. 222–223. ISBN 978-955-1534-16-5
31. ^ Wimal Weerawansa's free-fall from grace. Daily Mirror, Sri Lanka. 4 April 2017
32. ^ "India, Sri Lanka issue stamp in honour". The Sunday times. 21 September 2014. Retrieved 25 September 2015.
33. ^ "Dharmapala Mawatha (Colombo)". WikiMapia. Retrieved 25 September 2015.
34. ^ "Brown's Road (Anagarika Dharmapala Mawatha)". OpenStreetMap. Retrieved 25 September 2015.

Cited sources

• Harvey, Peter (1990). An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History, and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521313339.
• McMahan, David L. (2009). The making of Buddhist modernism. Oxford University Press US. ISBN 978-0-19-518327-6.
• Prothero, Stephen R. (1996). The white Buddhist: the Asian odyssey of Henry Steel Olcott. Indiana University Press.

Sources

• Trevithick, Alan (2006). The revival of Buddhist pilgrimage at Bodh Gaya (1811–1949): Anagarika Dharmapala and the Mahabodhi Temple. ISBN 978-81-208-3107-0.
• Anagarika Dharmapala Archive at Vipassana Fellowship
• WWW Virtual Library: ANAGARIKA DHARMAPALA at http://www.lankalibrary.com
• Anagarika Dharmapala, The Arya Dharma – Free eBook
• DeVotta, Neil. "The Utilisation of Religio-Linguistic Identities by the Sinhalese and Bengalis: Towards General Explanation". Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, Vol. 39, No. 1 (March 2001), pp. 66–95.
• Ven. Kiribathgoda Gnanananda Thero, 'Budu Sasuna Bebala Wu Asahaya Dharma Duthayano', Divaina, 17 September 2008
• Sangharakshita, Flame in Darkness: The Life and Sayings of Anagarika Dharmapala, Triratna Grantha Mala, Poona 1995
• Sangharakshita, Anagarika Dharmapala, a Biographical Sketch, and other Maha Bodhi Writings, Ibis Publications, 2013
• Daya Sirisena, 'Anagarika Dharmapala – trail-blazing servant of the Buddha', Daily News, 17 September 2004
• Anagarika Dharmapala A religio-cultural hero
• Bartholomeusz, Tessa J. 1993. "Dharmapala at Chicago : Mahayana Buddhist or Sinhala Chauvinist?" Museum of Faiths. Atlanta : Scholars Pr. 235–250.
• Kloppenborg, Ria. 1992. "The Anagarika Dharmapala (1864–1933) and the Puritan Pattern". Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, 46:4, 277–283.
• McMahan, David L. 2008. The Making of Buddhist Modernism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 91–97, 110–113.
• Obeyesekere, Gananath 1976. "Personal Identity and Cultural Crisis : the Case of Anagārika Dharmapala of Sri Lanka."Biographical Process. The Hague : Mouton. 221–252.
• Prothero, Stephen. 1996a. "Henry Steel Olcott, Anagarika Dharmapala and the Maha Bodhi Society." Theosophical History, 6:3, 96–106.
• Prothero, Stephen. 1996b. The White Buddhist: The Asian Odyssey of Henry Steel Olcott. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Saroja, G V. 1992. "The Contribution of Anagarika Devamitta Dharmapāla to the Revival of Buddhism in India." Buddhist Themes in Modern Indian Literature, Madras : Inst. of Asian Studies. 27–38.
• Amunugama, Sarath, 2016 " The Lion's Roar: Anagarika Dharmapala & the Making of Modern Buddhism" Colombo: Vijitha Yapa Publications.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 27302
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Wed Mar 27, 2019 3:38 am

Weligama Sri Sumangala
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 3/26/19

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Ven.Weligama Sri Sumangala Thero
Personal
Born 1825
Weligama (Sri Lanka)
Died March 13, 1905 (aged 80) [1]
Religion Buddhism
Nationality Sri Lankan
School Amarapura Nikaya [1] (Theravada-Sri Lanka)
Occupation religious leader

Weligama Sri Sumangala Thero (1825-1905)[1] was an outstanding scholar bhikkhu with many important publications -- Hitopadsesa Atthadassi, Hitopadsesa Padarthavykanaya, Upadesa Vinischaya, Siddanta Sekaraya. His work Siddhanta Sekharaya of 700 pages was printed at the Government Press in 1897. He established Saugathodaya Vidyalaya at Rankoth Viharaya in Panadura. He was a close associate of Sir Edwin Arnold the author of 'Light of Asia'.[2] He is responsible for encouraging Arnold and Anagarika Dharmapala to advocate for the renovation of Buddhagaya and its return to Buddhist care.[3][4][5]

Biography

Weligama Sri Sumangala, a Buddhist High Priest of Ceylon, and a distinguished Oriental scholar whose place it will be hard to fill. He was in his eighty-second year and had led a life of remarkable usefulness. Born in Weligama, he came of one of the oldest and most respected families of the southern provinces. His father intended him to follow the medical profession but a serious illness compelled him to relinquish the plan, while the suffering he experienced at the time led him to abandon wealth and ease and give his life to the service of humanity. He entered the Buddhist priesthood when only twelve years of age, and received his education under the High Priest Bentota who was one of the most famous Sanskrit scholars of his day.[6]

The Rev. Sumangala belonged to the Amarapura sect of Buddhist priests, and in 1894 [1] His colleagues in Ceylon unanimously elected him as their Chief High Priest,[1] at the same time bestowing upon him a distinguished title. He lived and dressed as did the Buddhist monks at the time of Buddha more than twenty centuries ago,[1] and was a noble representative of the religion of "The Enlightened One" in its original and purest form. His whole life has been characterized by a single-minded devotion to the uplifting of mankind, and he was beloved and appreciated by high and low, Buddhist and Christian.[1] Reports of the impressive ceremonies at his cremation state variously.

Schools named after

• Sri Sumangala College, Panadura[7]
• Sri Sumangala Girls College, Panadura[8]
• Sri Sumangala Boys College, Weligama
• Sri Sumangala Girls College, Weligama

References

1. "Weligama Sri Sumangala Thero".
2. Oxford University (1879). Trübner's American and oriental literary record. Oxford University. p. 120.
3. Harvey 303
4. India Revisited by Sri Edwin Arnold
5. Dipak K. Barua, “Buddha Gaya Temple: its history”
6. Sir Edwin Arnold (1892). The light of Asia, or, The great renunciation. Pennsylvania State University. p. 120.
7. "Sri Sumangala College, Panadura".
8. "Sri Sumangala Girls College, Panadura".
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 27302
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Wed Mar 27, 2019 3:46 am

Paul Carus
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 3/26/19

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image
Paul Carus
Paul Carus (German: [ˈkaːʀʊs]; 18 July 1852 – 11 February 1919) was a German-American author, editor, a student of comparative religion[1] and philosopher.[2]

Life and education

Carus was born in Ilsenburg, Germany, and educated at the universities of Strassburg (then Germany, now France) and Tübingen, Germany. After obtaining his PhD from Tübingen in 1876[3] he served in the army and then taught school. He had been raised in a pious and orthodox Protestant home, but gradually moved away from this tradition.[4]

He left Bismarck's Imperial Germany for the United States, "because of his liberal views".[2][5] After he immigrated to the USA (in 1884) he lived in Chicago, and in LaSalle, Illinois. Paul Carus married Edward C. Hegeler's daughter Mary (Marie) and the couple later moved into the Hegeler Carus Mansion, built by her father. They had six children.[6]

Career

In the United States, Carus briefly edited a German-language journal and wrote several articles for the Index, the Free Religious Association organ.[1]

Soon after, he became the first managing editor of the Open Court Publishing Company, founded in 1887 by his father-in-law.[5] The goals of Open Court were to provide a forum for the discussion of philosophy, science, and religion, and to make philosophical classics widely available by making them affordable.[6]

He also acted as the editor for two periodicals published by the company, The Open Court and The Monist.[3]


He was introduced to Charles Sanders Peirce, the founder of American Pragmatism, by Judge Francis C. Russell of Chicago. Carus stayed abreast of Peirce's work and would eventually publish a number of his articles.[7]

During his lifetime, Carus published 75 books and 1500 articles,[8] mostly through Open Court Publishing Company. He wrote books and articles on history, politics, philosophy, religion, logic, mathematics, anthropology, science, and social issues of his day. In addition, Carus corresponded with many of the greatest minds of the late 19th and early 20th century, sending and receiving letters from Leo Tolstoy, Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, Booker T. Washington, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Ernst Mach, Ernst Haeckel, John Dewey, and many more.

Carus's world view and philosophy

Carus considered himself a theologian rather than philosopher. He referred to himself as "an atheist who loved God".[9][10]

Carus is proposed to be a pioneer in the promotion of interfaith dialogue. He explored the relationship of science and religion, and was instrumental in introducing Eastern traditions and ideas to the West.[5] He was a key figure in the introduction of Buddhism to the West,[4] sponsoring Buddhist translation work of D.T. Suzuki, and fostering a lifelong working friendship with Buddhist Master, Soyen Shaku. Carus' interest in Asian religions seems to have intensified after he attended the World's Parliament of Religions (in 1893).

For years afterwards, Carus was a strong sympathizer of Buddhist ideas, but stopped short of committing fully to this, or any other, religion. Instead, he ceaselessly promoted his own rational concept which he called the "Religion of Science." Carus had a selective approach and he believed that religions evolve over time. After a battle for survival, he expected a "cosmic religion of universal truth" to emerge from the ashes of traditional beliefs.[4]

Carus proposed his own philosophy similar to panpsychism known as 'panbiotism', which he defined as "everything is fraught with life; it contains life; it has the ability to live."[11]

Religion of Science

Carus was a follower of Benedictus de Spinoza; he was of the opinion that Western thought had fallen into error early in its development in accepting the distinctions between body and mind and the material and the spiritual. (Kant's phenomenal and noumenal realms of knowledge; Christianity's views of the soul and the body, and the natural and the supernatural). Carus rejected such dualisms, and wanted science to reestablish the unity of knowledge.[12] The philosophical result he labeled Monism.[1]

His version of monism is more closely associated with a kind of pantheism, although it was occasionally identified with positivism.[10] He regarded every law of nature as a part of God's being. Carus held that God was the name for a cosmic order comprising "all that which is the bread of our spiritual life." He held the concept of a personal God as untenable. He acknowledged Jesus Christ as a redeemer, but not as the only one, for he believed that other religious founders were equally endowed with similar qualities.[10]

His beliefs attempted to steer a middle course between idealistic metaphysics and materialism. He differed with metaphysicians because they "reified" words and treated them as if they were realities, and he objected to materialism because it ignored or overlooked the importance of form. Carus emphasized form by conceiving of the divinity as a cosmic order. He objected to any monism which sought the unity of the world, not in the unity of truth, but in the oneness of a logical assumption of ideas. He referred to such concepts as henism, not monism.[10]

Carus held that truth was independent of time, human desire, and human action. Therefore, science was not a human invention, but a human revelation which needed to be apprehended; discovery meant apprehension; it was the result or manifestation of the cosmic order in which all truths were ultimately harmonious.[10]

Criticisms of Carus' ideas

It is claimed that Carus was dismissed by Orientalists and philosophers alike because of his failure to comply with the rules of either discipline.[13]

Legacy

The legacy of Paul Carus is honored through the efforts of the Hegeler Carus Foundation, the Carus Lectures at the American Philosophical Association (APA), and the Paul Carus Award for Interreligious Understanding[14] by the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions (CPWR).

Bibliography

His publications include:

• The Open Court Fortnightly Journal Vol 1 1887-1888
• The Soul Of Man: An Investigation Of The Facts Of Physiological And Experimental Psychology (1891, republished 2006) ISBN 1-4286-1359-5
• Monism: Its Scope and Import (1891)
• Homilies of Science (The Open Court Publishing Co., 1892)
• The Religion of Science (1893, republished 2007) ISBN 1-4304-4286-7
• Truth in fiction: twelve tales with a moral 1893
• The Philosophy of the Tool 1893
• The Gospel of Buddha (1894) ISBN 0-87548-228-7[15]
• Buddhism and Its Christian Critics (1894, republished 2005) ISBN 0-7661-9140-0
• The History of the Devil and the Idea of Evil (1900) ISBN 0-517-15064-6[16]
• Eros and Psyche: A fairy-tale of ancient Greece, retold after Apuleius (1900)
• Fundamental problems; the method of philosophy as a systematic arrangement of knowledge 1903
• The Surd of Metaphysics (1903)
• The Nature of the State 1904
• Kant and Spencer; a study of the fallacies of agnosticism 1904
• Karma: A Story of Buddhist Ethics (1905, republished 2004) ISBN 0-7661-9172-9
• Primer of philosophy 1906
• Story of Samson and its Place in the Religious Development of Mankind (1907, republished 2003) ISBN 0-7661-3877-1
• The Bride Of Christ: A Study In Christian Legend Lore (1908)
• The Foundations of Mathematics (1908,[17] republished 2004) ISBN 1-59605-006-3
• GOD: An Enquiry into the Nature of Man's Highest Ideal and a Solution of the Problem from the Standpoint of Science (1908, republished 2007) ISBN 1-60206-390-7
• The Philosopher's Martyrdom; A Satire 1908
• Godward; a record of religious progress 1908
The Pleroma: An Essay on the Origin of Christianity (1909)
• Philosophy as a Science: A Synopsis of the Writings of Paul Carus (1909)
• The Philosophy of Form (1911, republished 2007) ISBN 1-4304-9402-6
• The Mechanistic Principle and the Non-Mechanical: An Inquiry into Fundamentals With Extracts from Representatives of Either Side (1913) ISBN 0-912050-69-1[18]
• The Principle of Relativity In the Light of the Philosophy of Science (1913, republished 2004) ISBN 0-7661-9185-0
Nietzsche and Other Exponents of Individualism (1914,[19] republished 2007) ISBN 1-4325-2343-0
Goethe, with special consideration of his philosophy, by Paul Carus 1915
Kant's Prolegomena (1902, republished 1947)
• The Rise of Man: A Sketch of the Origin of the Human Race ISBN 1-4179-5157-5 (republished 2004)
• The Ethical Problem 1899 (republished 2005) ISBN 1-4212-7343-8

See also

• American philosophy
• List of American philosophers
• Necessitarianism
• Pleroma

References

1. Oriental Ideas in American Thought, from Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Studies of Selected Pivotal Ideas, edited by Philip P. Wiener (Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1973–74).
2. Austrian Philosophy, by Barry Smith, Note
3. The Monist:An International Quarterly Journal of General Philosophical Inquiry, featuring essays from scholars around the globe.
4. The American Encounter with Buddhism, 1844–1912: Victorian Culture and the Limits of Dissent, by Thomas A. Tweed (Paperback), page 65-67
5. "Open Court: About Us". http://www.opencourtbooks.com.
6. History of the Heleger Carus Foundation – The Hegeler Carus Mansion Archived 28 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine
7. William James and Yogaacaara philosophy: A comparative inquiry, by Miranda Shaw, (University of Hawaii Press, 1987), page 241, note 4
8. History of the Heleger Carus Foundation – Open Court Publishing Company Archived 28 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine
9. The Gospel of Buddha, by Paul Carus, page 26
10. Recent American Thought Archived 2 March 2008 at the Wayback Machine, from The Radical AcademyArchived 30 March 2008 at the Wayback Machine
11. Skrbina, David. (2005). Panpsychism in the West. MIT Press. p. 149. ISBN 0-262-19522-4
• Carus Paul (1893). "Panpsychism and Panbiotism". The Monist. 3 (2): 234–257. doi:10.5840/monist18933222. JSTOR 27897062.
12. Meyer, Donald Harvey (Winter 1962). "Paul Carus and the Religion of Science". American Quarterly. 14 (4): 597–607. doi:10.2307/2710135. JSTOR 2710135.
13. Future Religion – Making an American Buddha Archived 10 November 2013 at the Wayback Machine, by Judith Snodgrass. A review of republished The Gospel of Buddha
14. The Paul Carus Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Interreligious Movement Archived 16 June 2006 at the Wayback Machine. See also: Carus Award 2004 Archived27 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine
15. "The Gospel of Buddha - Paul Carus (1894) - Index Document". http://www.mountainman.com.au.
16. "History of the Devil Index". http://www.sacred-texts.com.
17. Owens, Frederick William (1910). "Review: The Foundations of Mathematics by Paul Carus". Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 16: 541–542. doi:10.1090/S0002-9904-1910-01969-8.
18. "Review: The Mechanistic Principle and the Non-Mechanical by Paul Carus". The Harvard Theological Review. 7 (2): 271–272. April 1914. doi:10.1017/s0017816000011196.
19. Salter, William Mackintire (July 1915). "Review of 4 books:Nietzsche and Other Exponents of Individualism by Paul Carus;The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche by H. L. Mencken; The Philosophy of Nietzsche: An Exposition and an Appreciation by Georges Chatterton-Hill; Nietzsche, sein Leben und seine Werkeby Richard M. Meyer". The Harvard Theological Review. 8 (3): 400–408. doi:10.1017/s0017816000008993.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 27302
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Wed Mar 27, 2019 4:14 am

Parliament of the World's Religions
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 3/26/19

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image
Chicago Meeting, 1893
Status Active
Genre Conference, Exhibits
Inaugurated 11-16 September 1893[1] (Chicago, USA)
Previous event 15-19 October 2015 (Salt Lake, USA)
Next event 1-7 November 2018 (Toronto, Canada)
Website parliamentofreligions.org

There have been several meetings referred to as a Parliament of the World's Religions, the first being the World's Parliament of Religions of 1893, which was an attempt to create a global dialogue of faiths. The event was celebrated by another conference on its centenary in 1993. This led to a new series of conferences under the official title Parliament of the World's Religions.

Organization

An organization was incorporated in 1988 to carry out the tradition of the Parliament of the World's Religions by marking the centennial of the first Parliament. The Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions[2] is headquartered in Chicago. Its board of trustees are elected from various faith communities. Rev. Dr. Larry Greenfield serves as its executive director.[3]

History

1893 Parliament


Image
Swami Vivekananda on the platform of the Parliament of Religions September 1893. On the platform (left to right) Virchand Gandhi, Anagarika Dharmapala, Swami Vivekananda[4] and G. Bonet Maury.

In 1893, the city of Chicago hosted the World Columbian Exposition, an early world's fair. So many people were coming to Chicago from all over the world that many smaller conferences, called Congresses and Parliaments, were scheduled to take advantage of this unprecedented gathering. One of these was the World's Parliament of Religions, an initiative of the Swedenborgian layman (and judge) Charles Carroll Bonney.[5][6] The Parliament of Religions was by far the largest of the congresses held in conjunction with the Exposition.[7] John Henry Barrows, a clergyman, was appointed as the first chairman of the General Committee of the 1893 Parliament by Charles Bonney.[8]

The Parliament of Religions opened on 11 September 1893 at the World's Congress Auxiliary Building which is now The Art Institute of Chicago, and ran from 11 to 27 September, making it the first organized interfaith gathering.[9] Today it is recognized as the occasion of the birth of formal interreligious dialogue worldwide, with representatives of a wide variety of religions and new religious movements, including:

• The Jain preacher Virchand Gandhi was invited as a representative of Jainism.[10]
• The Buddhist preacher Anagarika Dharmapala was invited as a representative of "Southern Buddhism," the term applied at that time to the Theravada.
• Soyen Shaku, the "First American Ancestor" of Zen, made the trip.[11]
• An essay by the Japanese Pure Land master Kiyozawa Manshi, "Skeleton of the philosophy of religion" was read in his absence.
• Swami Vivekananda belongs Bengali Kayastha community represented Hinduism as a delegate, introducing Hinduism at the opening session of the Parliament on 11 September.[12]Though initially nervous, he bowed to Saraswati, then began his speech with salutation, "Sisters and brothers of America!". To these words he got a standing ovation from a crowd of seven thousand, which lasted for two minutes. When silence was restored he began his address. He greeted the youngest of the nations on behalf of "the most ancient order of monks in the world, the Vedic order of sannyasins, a religion which has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance!"
• Christianity was represented by G. Bonet Maury who was a protestant historian invited by Swami Vivekananda
• Islam was represented by Mohammed Alexander Russell Webb, an Anglo-American convert to Islam and the former US ambassador to the Philippines.
• Rev. Henry Jessup addressing the World Parliament of Religions was the first to publicly discuss the Bahá'í Faith in the United States (it had previously been known in Europe).[13] Since then Bahá'ís have become active participants.[14]
• Theism or the Brahmo Samaj was represented by Pratap Chandra Majumdar
• The Theosophical Society was represented by the Vice-President of the society, William Quan Judge and by activist Annie Besant.
• New religious movements of the time, such as Spiritualism and Christian Science. The latter was represented by Septimus J. Hanna, who read an address written by its founder Mary Baker Eddy.[15]

Absent from this event were Native American religious figures, Sikhs and other Indigenous and Earth centered religionists; these religions and spiritual traditions were not represented until the 1993 Parliament convened.

1993 Parliament

In 1993, the Parliament convened at the Palmer House hotel in Chicago. Over 8,000 people from all over the world, from many diverse religions, gathered to celebrate, discuss and explore how religious traditions can work together on the critical issues which confront the world.[16] A document, "Towards a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration", mainly drafted by Hans Küng, set the tone for the subsequent ten days of discussion. This global ethic was endorsed by many of the attending religious and spiritual leaders who were part of the parliament assembly.[17]

Also created for the 1993 parliament was a book, A Sourcebook for the Community of Religions, by the late Joel Beversluis, which has become a standard textbook in religion classes. Unlike most textbooks of religion, each entry was written by members of the religion in question.

The keynote address was given by the Dalai Lama on the closing day of the assembly. Cardinal Joseph Bernardin also participated.

1999 Parliament

More than 7,000 individuals from over 80 countries attended 1999 Parliament in Cape Town, South Africa. The Parliament began with a showing of the international AIDS Memorial Quilt to highlight the epidemic of AIDS in South Africa, and of the role that religious and spiritual traditions play in facing the critical issues that face the world. The event continued with hundreds of panels, symposia and workshops, offerings of prayer and meditation, plenaries and performances. The programs emphasized issues of religious, spiritual, and cultural identity, approaches to interreligious dialogue, and the role of religion in response to the critical issues facing the world today.

The Parliament Assembly considered a document called A Call to Our Guiding Institutions, addressed to religion, government, business, education, and media inviting these institutions to reflect on and transform their roles at the threshold of the next century.

In addition to the Call, the Parliament staff had created a book, Gifts of Service to the World, showcasing over 300 projects considered to be making a difference in the world. The Assembly members also deliberated about Gifts of Service which they could offer or could pledge to support among those projects gathered in the Gifts document.

2004 Parliament

It was celebrated in the Universal Forum of Cultures.[18] More than 8,900 individuals attended the 2004 Parliament in Barcelona, Spain. Having created the declaration Towards a Global Ethic[19] at the 1993 Parliament and attempted to engage guiding institutions at the 1999 Parliament, the 2004 Parliament concentrated on four pressing issues: mitigating religiously motivated violence, access to safe water, the fate of refugees worldwide, and the elimination of external debt in developing countries. Those attending were asked to make a commitment to a "simple and profound act" to work on one of these issues.

2009 Parliament

Melbourne, Australia, hosted the 2009 Parliament of the World's Religions. The 2009 parliament took place from 3 December to 9 December. Over 6,000 people attended the parliament.[20]

The Melbourne parliament addressed issues of Aboriginal reconciliation. The issues of sustainability and global climate change were explored through the lens of indigenous spiritualities. Environmental issues and the spirituality of youth were also key areas of dialogue.

The Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions suggested that the Melbourne parliament would "educate participants for global peace and justice" through exploring religious conflict and globalization, creating community and cross-cultural networks and addressing issues of religious violence. It supported "strengthening religious and spiritual communities" by providing a special focus on indigenous and Aboriginal spiritualities; facilitating cooperation between Pagan, Jewish, Christian, Bahá'í, Jain, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh and Hindu communities; crafting new responses to religious extremism and confronting homegrown terrorism and violence.[21]

The Rev. Dirk Ficca served as the executive director at the time of the 2009 Parliament of Religions. Ms. Zabrina Santiago served as deputy director and partner cities director.

2015 Parliament

In 2011, The Parliament of World's Religions announced that the 2014 Parliament would take place in Brussels, Belgium.[22] In November 2012, a joint statement from Brussels and CPWR announced that because of the financial crisis in Europe, Brussels was unable to raise the funds required for a Parliament.[23]

On 15–19 October, the 2015 Parliament took place at the Salt Palace Convention Center in Salt Lake City, Utah.[24] 9,806 attendees, performers, and volunteers from 73 countries, 30 major religions and 548 sub-traditions participated in the Parliament.[25] During the closing ceremony, Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid announced that the Parliament would henceforth be held every two years, with the next gathering scheduled for 2017.[26] This was later changed to 2018.

2018 Parliament

The Board of Trustees of the Parliament organization selected Toronto as the site of the 2018 Parliament of the World's Religions at their April 2017 Board meeting. The event was scheduled for 1-7 November 2018.[27]

Related Events

Great Religious Exposition


From March to May 1930, Kyoto, Japan hosted a Great Religious Exposition (宗教大博覧会 Shūkyō Dai-hakurankai). Religious groups from across Japan and China exhibited at the fair.[28] All of Japan's traditional Buddhist sects had an exhibit, as well as Christianity.[29]

2007 Monterrey Forum of Cultures

Forum Monterrey 2007 was an international event which included Parliament-style events and dialogues.[30] It was held as part of the 2007 Universal Forum of Cultures, which featured international congresses, dialogues, exhibitions, and spectacles on the themes of peace, diversity, sustainability and knowledge. Special emphasis was placed on the eight objectives of the Millennium Development goals for eradicating abject poverty around the world.

2016 Central European Interfaith Forum (CEIF 2016)

On 25 July 2016 the Parliament of the World’s Religions–Slovakia and the Slovak Esperanto Federation in collaboration with other partners organized in Nitra, Slovakia called the Central European Interfaith Forum.[31][32][33]

Besides Elisabeth Ziegler-Duregger, Ambassador of the Parliament of the World’s Religions, there were also more than 150 participants representing 20 nations, three continents, seven world religions as well as other religious, spiritual or humanist traditions convened for interfaith and civic exchanges in the search for solutions to the growing ethnic, cultural and religious tension in Europe and to jointly address some of humanity’s most vexing problems such as the alarming trends of nationalism, extremism and xenophobia in societies.[33][34] The event resulted in a statement (the Nitra statement).[34]

See also

• Interfaith dialogue
• Ecumenism
• Sarva Dharma Sammelan (Meeting of all religions) held every year in India

References

1. Chicago 1893 parliamentofreligions.org
2. ParliamentofReligions.org, Official Site
3. "Dr. Larry Greenfield | Parliament of the World's Religions". http://www.parliamentofreligions.org. Retrieved 2015-10-31.
4. "Chicago, September, 1893 on the platform". vivekananda.net. Retrieved 11 April 2012.
5. Marcus Braybrooke, Charles Bonney and the Idea for a World Parliament of Religions, The Interfaith Observer
6. Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology, World Parliament of Religions (1893)
7. McRae, John R. (1991). "Oriental Verities on the American Frontier: The 1893 World's Parliament of Religions and the Thought of Masao Abe". Buddhist-Christian Studies. University of Hawai'i Press. 11: 7–36. doi:10.2307/1390252. JSTOR 1390252.
8. Michaud, Derek. An Analysis of Culture and ReligionPeople.bu.edu. 14 April 2012.
9. "Parliament of the World’s Religions", Religion & Ethics Newsweekly, 23 October 2015
10. Jain, Pankaz; Pankaz Hingarh; Bipin Doshi; Smt. Priti Shah. "Virchand Gandhi, A Gandhi before Gandhi". herenow4u. Retrieved 26 March 2014.
11. Ford, James Ishmael (2006). Zen Master Who?. Wisdom Publications. pp. 59–62. ISBN 0-86171-509-8.
12. Dutt 2005, p. 121
13. "First Public Mentions of the Bahá'í Faith". Bahá'í Information Office of the UK. 1998. Retrieved 25 September 2015.
14. "Baha'is participate in interfaith parliament". Bahá'í World News Service. Bahá’í International Community. 12 July 2004. Retrieved 25 September 2015.
15. Peel, Robert (1977). Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Discovery. New York: Holt, Rineheart and Winston, p. 51.
16. "1993 Chicago: Chicago 1993 | parliamentofreligions.org". parliamentofreligions.org. Retrieved 2017-11-22.
17. "Global Ethic: About the Global Ethic | parliamentofreligions.org". parliamentofreligions.org. Retrieved 2017-11-22.
18. "2004 Parliament of the World's Religions". Retrieved 27 February 2019.
19. "Towards a Global Ethic". kusala.org. 13 September 2014.
20. "Guestview: Faiths meet at Parliament of World Religions". Reuters. 8 December 2009.
21. http://www.parliamentofreligions.org/index.cfm?n=8
22. "Brussels to Host the Parliament". Parliament of the World's Religions. 21 March 2011.
23. "Joint Statement About Brussels 2014". 30 November 2012.
24. "Parliament of World Religions convenes in Mormon country - at last". 14 October 2015. Retrieved 27 February 2019.
25. "Parliament Follow Up Letter | Inter Religious Federation for World Peace". http://www.irfwp.org. Retrieved 2015-10-31.
26. Parliament of the World's Religions in Salt Lake 'best ever,' chairman says. Deseret News. Retrieved 2016-6-27.
27. "2018 Toronto: Toronto 2018 | parliamentofreligions.org". parliamentofreligions.org. Retrieved 2017-11-22.
28. 村上重良「評伝出口王仁三郎」1978. p. 183.
29. Stalker, Nancy K. (2008). Prophet motive : Deguchi Onisaburō, Oomoto, and the rise of new religions in Imperial Japan. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. pp. 118–130. ISBN 9780824831721.
30. "2007 Universal Forum of Cultures, Monterrey, Mexico". Retrieved 27 February 2019.
31. "Central European Interfaith Formum". CIEF. 4 August 2016. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
32. "Central European Interfaith Forum". World Esperanto Congress 2016. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
33. "Forum of the World's Religions". Our Forum 2016. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
34. "CEIF Central European Interfaith Forum" (PDF). Nitra Statement. CEIF. Retrieved 4 August 2016.

Further reading

• The World's Congress of Religions – The addresses and papers delivered before the Parliament, and the Abstract of the Congresses, held in Chicago, August 1893 to October 1893, under the Auspices of The World's Columbian Exposition. Chicago, 1894.[1]
• Rev. J. H. Barrows. The World's Parliament of Religions. Chicago,1893.
• Rev. J. L. Jones. A Chorus of faith as heard in Parliament of Religions held in Chicago, 10–27 September 1893. Chicago, 1893.
• Rev. L. P. Mercer. Review of the World's Religions Congresses of the World's Congress Auxiliary of the World's Columbian Exposition. Chicago, 1893.
• Prof. Walter R. Houghton. Neely's History of the Parliament of Religions and Religious Congresses at the World's Columbian Exposition. Chicago, 1893.
• Max Muller. Arens, December 1894. Boston.
• Bonnet Maury. Revue des deux mondes, 15 August 1894.
• R. Rev. Kean. Catholic family annual, 1893.
• Rev. J. H. Barrows. "Results of the Parliament of Religions". The Forum, September 1894.
• G. D. Boardmann. The Parliament of Religions. Philadelphia, 1893.
• M. Zmigrodsky. "Kongres Katolicki i Kongres wszech Religij w Chicago 1893 roku". Kraków, 1894.
• Gen. M. M. Trumbull. "The Parliament of Religions". The Monist, April 1894.
• Dr. Paul Carus. "The dawn of a new religious Era". The Forum, 1893. The Monist, April 1894.
Peel, Robert (1977). Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Authority. New York: Holt, Rineheart and Winston, p. 51.

External links

• parliamentofreligions.org, Official Site
• Videos: Portal, Official Portal
• Das Weltparlament der Religionen in Chicago 1893 (German)
• Video of Fahad Abualnasr, Director General of KAICID on the occasion of the Central European Interfaith Forum 2016 held in Nitra, Slovakia.

References

1. "The Worlds Congress of Religions". Conkey Company. Retrieved 2014-09-13.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 27302
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Articles & Essays

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron