While discontinuing mass civil disobedience, Gandhi and Aney urged in their statements abandonment of secret methods and dissolved all Congress organizations, including the AICC office.(64) All this was done under the facade of no-surrender. Later, in another statement Aney said he had not dissolved the AICC and other regular Congress organizations but the Congress Committees that had sprung up during the struggle. Gandhi and other Congress leaders had been worried at the emergence of such committees. As the Congress was under ban, clandestine arrangements had been made by middle-level and ordinary Congress workers to carry on the struggle, much to the dislike of the leaders, for they had little control over them. They had reasons to be perturbed. Things like the picketing of Sir Purshotamdas's mansion and the clandestine bulletins issued by the Emergency Council of the Bombay Provincial Congress Committee dubbing Purshotamdas and G.D. Birla as traitors were enough evidence of "unwary hands" causing mischief that could hardly be tolerated.
Gandhi's telegram seeking an interview with the Viceroy upset Nehru in prison. On 18 July 1933 he noted in his diary:
"`Peace', `Honourable Peace!' What about? With whom and on what basis? It is amazing how flabby-minded our people have got. They meet at Poona [now Pune] at a critical moment after nearly 2 years and they do not even trouble to discuss, much less lay down, the objective before us. Only talks of peace with a government that has insulted us in every way." He felt sure that "there can be no further political co-operation between Bapu and me.... we had better go our different ways. My way will keep me in jail. That is dull work and depressing, but perhaps it is just as well."(65)
But when the moment came to make the choice between the quest for "honourable peace" of the Gandhian kind and fight against imperialism, he would invariably follow in the footsteps of Gandhi. In his statement issued on 4 September 1933 (one may mark the two dates), after leaving prison, Nehru completely changed his tune. He said to the press on 14 September: "I feel that the methods he [Gandhi] taught us to follow are fundamentally right for us and we must continue to pursue them till we gain that objective [the political and economic objectives which Gandhi had in view] and for these methods his leadership is essential." And on 19 September he declared: "There is not the slightest difference between Gandhi and myself.... there is a fundamental unity in regard to our line of action."(66)
The General Secretary of the Congress, Nehru, discouraged those who wanted that a meeting of the AICC should be convened for a discussion of the Congress programme. He did not "consider that a meeting at the present moment would serve any useful purpose". "For all his rhetoric", writes S. Gopal, "he had no new policy and, seemingly, no use for democracy either, for he refused to consult other Congressmen."(67) A little later, on 19 December, Nehru wrote that "the Congress is undoubtedly today the most advanced revolutionary organization in action in India.... Personally I hold that under existing circumstances the present programme is suitable and gives us scope to develop our struggle."(68)
What Nehru wrote in the privacy of the prison, which should be distinguished from his usual rhetoric, exhibits a duality of character. These notes are sometimes tinged with a genuine passion for freedom and a vague desire for the amelioration of the conditions of the people -- his `socialism' -- "the divesting" of the vested interests in India, "the British Government, the Indian princes and others", "and with every effort to avoid injury". But there was another self within him -- more dominant -- which, despite brave talks, believed in the same goal as the Gandhis and Birlas -- self-government within the British empire or commonwealth -- and the preservation of the social and economic status quo. Moreover, as Rajagopalachari, his colleague of many long years, said, Nehru "had always been a worshipper of success".(69) Whatever might be his true feelings at times, he had to suppress them for the sake of his overmastering ambition.
Gandhi knocked and knocked at the Viceregal door but the door refused to open. In a letter to Bombay's Home Secretary, he regretted that "the Government do not seek or desire peace, they want an abject surrender...." He also complained of the lack of "chivalry and gentlemanliness on the part of the officials. The insatiable desire for humiliating everybody and every organization is terrible".(70) He complained of the humiliation he had to suffer but not about the atrocities of which the people were victims.
`Amidst the encircling gloom' Gandhi announced on 30 July that he would begin on 1 August a march with some companions, men and women, and that during the march he would invite individuals to offer individual civil disobedience, to give up drinking, etc. He was arrested before the march commenced, and was sentenced to one year's imprisonment. He demanded that all the facilities that he had been enjoying during his previous spell in prison for leading his anti-untouchability campaign should be restored to him. When the government provided him with several, but not all, facilities, he went on a fast from 16 August.
Released on the eighth day of his fast, Gandhi returned to the Thackerseys' palace. He announced that until 3 August next year his own individual civil disobedience would remain suspended. He repeatedly declared that he was "dying to co-operate with anybody and everybody and certainly with the Government in restoring peace" and that another approach to the Viceroy for an interview "was quite on the cards".(71)
Gandhi discouraged those Congressmen who proposed that the AICC should be convened to reconsider the Congress policy. As he explained to Pandit Malaviya and Nehru, he would welcome an AICC meeting if it gave up civil disobedience and adopted a council-entry programme, but he feared that a majority of AICC members would insist on a civil disobedience programme.(72) Nehru too, as noted before, opposed the convening of an AICC meeting at that stage.
Gandhi's British intermediaries were playing their behind-the-stage roles. On 2 September 1933, C.F. Andrews saw Home Secretary Hallett and "gave him his impressions of Gandhiji's mind". Besides, Andrews saw Harry Haig, the Home Member of the Government of India, and the Viceroy and then wrote pleadingly to Haig.(73) At Gandhi's instance Muriel Lester, his hostess in London in 1931, saw the Bengal Governor Anderson as well as the Viceroy in February and March 1934. She carried a letter to Anderson from Gandhi. Agatha Harrison also landed in India in March 1934. Like Andrews, Agatha Harrison, Horace Alexander, Mirabehn (Madeleine Slade), Muriel Lester tried to persuade the raj to unbend. On 19 February Gandhi wrote to G.D. Birla that things like Lester's interview with the Viceroy could "bring about no result at the moment. Still, we do not want to miss any opportunity of compromise[!]. Whatever the Congressmen may say Bidhan Roy should make full effort to seek an interview."(74) Why did not the British imperialists relent after Gandhi had practically killed the civil disobedience movement and given so much evidence of his friendliness? They refused any contact with Gandhi until he formally withdrew civil disobedience including the individual variety, until he capitulated completely. At the moment they had no need of Gandhi since they were convinced that most Congress leaders would vie with one another to lap up whatever concessions the raj would make; that they would be quite eager to work the constitution that was being drafted in London. This impression was conveyed to Home Member Haig by Gandhi's friend Henry Polak and Jamnadas Dwarkadas.(75) Anderson, whose source of knowledge might have been G.D. Birla, made a similar report to Hoare.(76) On 9 June 1935 Madras Governor Erskine communicated to the Secretary of State: "Down here, the leaders are simply panting to take office."(77)
In the meantime Gandhi was quietly leading the Congress towards the constitutional path. Since July 1933, he had been advising S. Satyamurthi, Asaf Ali, M.A. Ansari, K.F. Nariman, K.M. Munshi and others to form a `parliamentary' party for entering the legislatures.(78) In March 1934 Satyamurthi,the Madras Congress leader, approached Haig and received assurances that the government would not interfere with the formation of such a party. Among others who sounded the Home Member on the same issue was Sir Cowasji Jehangir, who was sent by K.F. Nariman, then president of the Bombay PCC.(79)
The Indian big bourgeoisie also wanted the Congress to convert itself into a `parliamentary' party. This desire was publicly expressed in the presidential address of N.R. Sarkar, who was quite close to Birla, to the annual session of the FICCI held on 31 March and 1 April 1934. He called for "a reconsideration of our political methods and tactics" and pleaded for a programme of council-entry.(80)
An earthquake occurred in March 1934 and devastated large parts of North Bihar. Gandhi blamed the sin of untouchability as the cause of the grim tragedy that overwhelmed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children -- both the sinners and the sinned. Gandhi visited Bihar and a relief committee was set up by the Congress with Rajendra Prasad as president. A resolution declaring that the Committee tendered "its respectful co-operation to the Government in the prosecution of the common object of relieving the unparalleled distress that has overtaken Bihar" was adopted. It was Gandhi and Malaviya who pushed through the resolution despite opposition.(81)
In a statement released on 7th April 1934 to the press Gandhi announced unconditional suspension -- practically withdrawal -- of the civil disobedience movement for reasons highly spiritual.(82)
Nehru who had gone back to prison in the meantime was "bowled" over by this statement. He recorded in his prison diary: "After 15 years I go my way, perhaps a solitary way not far -- But meanwhile there is prison and its lonely existence." Again, he wrote: "How can one work with Bapu if he functions in this way and leaves people in the lurch?"(83) This too, was just a passing mood.
On Gandhi's withdrawal of civil disobedience, the government declared in the Legislative Assembly that it would have no objection to a meeting of the AICC.
As desired by Gandhi, the decision was taken to revive the Swaraj Party and to contest the elections to the Central Legislative Assembly.(84) Among those who took the initiative were Ansari, B.C. Roy and Bhulabhai Desai. Most of them had not participated in the Civil Disobedience Movement.
This decision was in flagrant contradiction with the resolution adopted at the Lahore Congress which had resolved upon "complete boycott of the Central and Provincial Legislatures and Committees appointed by the Government". This resolution was neither withdrawn nor amended either by any subsequent Congress session or by the AICC. The decision was adopted not even by the Working Committee but by a few individual Congressmen who had kept themselves aloof even from sham struggles. It was actually a one-man decision -- the decision of Gandhi -- which he was carrying out through obliging men. This was Congress democracy in action.
Speaking to the press on 18 April, Gandhi said that the members of the old Swaraj Party, who had not resigned from the Central and Provincial Legislatures, violating the decision of the Lahore Congress, would be members of the revived Party "for the asking". Writing to Birla, Gandhi said: "It is this group [that favours Council-entry] which should have the reins of the Congress, for it alone needs the label of the Congress." He wrote to Patel: "It is absolutely necessary that it [the Swaraj Party] should be revived.... I don't think this is a temporary phase; it has come to stay."(85)
On 1 May there was a conference at Ranchi, which Gandhi, Jamnalal Bajaj, Rajendra Prasad and some Swarajists attended. Birla too was invited by Gandhi to attend it.(86)
So it was decided to take part in the elections to the Central Assembly, which were scheduled to be held before the end of 1934. Gandhi told the press that there would be and should be many instances of co-operation with the British raj.(87) It was decided to take part in elections when Congress Committees were banned and when thousands of Congressmen including some leaders were in prison.
On 7 April, after the withdrawal of civil disobedience by Gandhi the Viceroy wrote to the Secretary of State: "Gandhi has in effect capitulated." Willingdon wired to Hoare on 19 April: "At present our policy has triumphed. Congress appears to be in a chastened mood and there are at least a large number of them genuinely anxious to resume constitutional activities and enter the legislature. This is a development we should welcome."(88)
D.A. Low points out that the aim of the British imperialists "was to make them [the Congress] play by the constitutional rules they had laid down. Having failed in 1929-31 to persuade them to this, between 1932 and 1934 they successfully coerced them instead." They expected that by abjuring mass action and following the constitutional path, the Congress leaders would isolate the revolutionary elements from the Congress as a whole, reorganize it and build up its strength. They decided to withdraw restrictions on Congress Committees and enable the AICC to meet and convert itself into a party wedded to constitutional politics. The Congress leaders pursued the course as the raj desired. The AICC met at Patna in May 1934 and appointed a Parliamentary Board to contest elections.(89)
Birla and Thakurdas were quite happy.(90) Birla wanted Gandhi to have full control over the newly-formed Swaraj Party or not to take any interest in it. Interestingly, writing almost at the same time from the Birla Mills, Delhi, Rajagopalachari pleaded in the same vein.(91) Their wishes were respected. The new Swaraj party was stillborn: the entire Congress changed itself into an electioneering party.
The Working Committee met about mid-June 1934 and adopted a resolution, which declared that "confiscation and class war are contrary to the Congress creed of non-violence".(92) Earlier, Gandhi had observed that he did not believe in class-conflict and was opposed to the abolition of the rule of the princes, elimination of landlordism, cancellation of the debts of peasants and workers and nationalization of the instruments of production. He did not support the "repudiation of the so-called public debt of India" to Britain; instead, he wanted it to be referred to an impartial tribunal. Assuring the zamindars, Gandhi said that he would be "no party to dispossessing the propertied classes of their private property without just cause.... Our socialism and communism should... be based on non-violence and the harmonious co-operation of labour and capital and the landlord and the tenant." "The Ramarajya of my dream", said Gandhi, "ensures the rights alike of the prince and pauper."(93)
In the same meeting the Working Committee recorded that the White Paper "falls short of the Congress goal" and stated that the "only satisfactory alternative to the White Paper is a constitutiondrawn up by a Constituent Assembly, elected on the basis of adult suffrage or as near it as possible, with the power, if necessary, to the important minorities to have their representatives elected exclusively by the electors belonging to such minorities". Thus, the Committee agreed to separate electorates for the minorities for election to a constituent assembly that would draft the constitution of future independent India. On the Communal Award, it declared that it could "neither accept nor reject the Communal Award..." and held out the hope that "The White Paper lapsing, the Communal Award must lapse automatically".(94)
The Congress Parliamentary Board issued on 29 July 1934 its election manifesto, presumably drafted by Gandhi and approved by the Board meeting jointly with the Working Committee. While reiterating the Working Committee's stand on the Communal Award, the manifesto said: "The Parliamentary Board has, therefore, to concentrate the attention of the voters on the rejection of the White Paper and, as the only alternative to it, upon securing and convening a constituent assembly". The manifesto clarified that "such an assembly can be convened only by an agreement between the Governing Powers and the people unless it is after a successful revolution. We have in contemplation the former".(95) Significantly, a constituent assembly elected on the basis of separate communal electorates and set up under the aegis of British imperialism became the goal of the Congress instead of independence.
Again, in an incomplete note on the Congress programme, written in prison, Nehru said: