Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:53:15.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Hindu Mahasabha and the Indian National Congress, 1915 to 1926

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Richard Gordon
Richard Gordon
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1926, when it contested the general elections to the Imperial and Provincial Legislatures for the first time, the Indian National Congress was embroiled in a protracted struggle between rival factions for control of the Congress organisation. Electoral rivalries exacerbated existing factionalism and highlighted the often contradictory aims, methods and interests pursued by competing groups within the loose framework of the nationalist movement. If the non-cooperation campaign of 1920–21 had witnessed a national awakening and initiated a more aggressive phase in the history of Indian nationalism, the unity imposed upon the Congress proved fragile and temporary. The curious alliance of forces which had adhered to the Congress in the more confident days of the movement and which were mixed so promiscuously with the survivors of the old Congress, exposed the organisation and its leadership to greater strain in sustaining the united front once the impulse of the agitation had subsided and provincial, regional and sectarian forces began to re-assert themselves with a vengeance. The price of a tenuous unity in 1920 was increased competition and disruption within the Congress throughout the decade; a whirlpool of differences which, to many contemporaries in the thick of events, threatened to overwhelm it.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , March 1975 , pp. 145 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Young India, 14 July 1920.Google Scholar Quoted in The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi XVIII, (Ahmadabad, 1965), pp. 41–3.Google Scholar

2 ‘The Party was no longer a wing of the Congress,—a protestant wing,—a minority receiving concessions or a bare majority anxious to take the rest with it. It was the Congress itself.’ (My italics). B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, The History of the Indian National Congress, I, (Bombay, 1946), p. 288.Google Scholar

3 Coupland, R., The Constitutional Problem in India, Pt I, ‘The Indian Problem, 1883–1935’ (Madras, 1945), pp. 72–6.Google Scholar

4 Reeves, P. D., ‘The Landlords' Response to Political Change in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, India 1921–37’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Australian National University, 1963, p. 211;Google Scholar Broomfield, J. H., Elite Conflict in a Plural Society: Twentieth Century Bengal (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968), pp. 270–81.Google Scholar

5 The Congress tradition of secularism has been linked particularly with the fortunes of the Nehru family. Nanda, B. R., The Nehrus (London, 1965). In addition to their secularism, however, the Nehrus were known for their pro-Muslim sentiment.Google Scholar

6 Broomfield, for example, simplifies the communal tussle in Bengal by ignoring the ±existence of rival Muslim parties competing with Sir Abdur Rahim's Bengal Moslem Party for the allegiance of the Muslims of Bengal. The Independent Muslim Party and the National Muslim Party (the latter, controlled by Fazl ul-Haq, was allied to the Congress) were distinct parties, while there were a number of personal factions loosely grouped as Independents. The differences between these groups were, presumably, as important as any supposed communal unity.Broomfield, Elite Conflict, pp. 278–81.

7 No systematic analysis has yet been done on the composition of the electorate under the 1919 constitution. The major source is still the Franchise Committee Report of 1919, but newspapers do remedy some of the deficiencies.

8 Communalism comprehended a wide variety of movements apart from the more specifically religious nationalism of the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League. For a discussion of caste and nationality, see , L. I. and Rudolph, S. H., The Modernity of Tradition, Political Development in India (Chicago and London, 1967), pp. 64–87.Google Scholar

9 Nehru, J., An Autobiography (London, 1949), p. 134;Google Scholar Ram, Gopal, Indian Muslims: A Political History, 1858–1947 (Bombay, 1959), p. 162.Google Scholar

10 The origins of the Hindu Mahasabha have never been studied adequately. Conventional accounts stress the period after 1920. Smith, D. E., India as a Secular State (Princeton, 1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Heimsath, C. H., Indian Nationalism and Hindu Social Reform (Princeton, 1964), pp. 276–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 For an account of the origins of the Arya Samaj and the Sanatan Dharma movement and for a comparison of their theologies, see Farquhar, J. N., Modern Religious Movements in India (Delhi, 1967), pp. 101–29 and pp. 316–23.Google Scholar

13 Sundaram, V. A. (ed.), Benares Hindu University, 1905–1935 (Benares, 1936), pp. 90–1.Google Scholar The Society first met at Delhi in December 1911 and in January 1912 was incorporated as a society under Act XXI of 1860 with head-quarters at Allahabad. See also Das, Bhagwan, ‘Hindu University Genesis’, The Leader, 24 April 1916.Google Scholar

14 Barrier, N. G., ‘The Arya Samaj and Congress Politics in the Punjab 1894–1908’, Journal of Asian Studies, XXVI, No. 3 (05 1967), p. 376.Google ScholarIn 1909 the Punjab Government contemplated extending official recognition to the Hindu Sabha and other communal bodies. Home, Poll. A, August 1909, 182–84, p. 295, National Archives of India, New Delhi [N.A.I.].Google Scholar

15 ‘… the great majority of the so-called leaders of Upper India, specially those of the Punjab, had worked themselves to a high pitch …’. Motilal Nehru to jawaharlal Nehru 6 January 1911, Nehru Papers, Nehru Memorial Museum, New Delhi [N.M.M.].Google Scholar

16 Speech by Rampal Singh, Bais Rajput taluqdar of Kurri Sidhauli, Rae Bareli, Chairman of the Reception Committee, Hindu Mahasabha Conference, Lucknow, December 1916. The Leader, 31 December 1916. The Mahasabha officially recognised this conference as its first annual conference.Google Scholar

17 In October 1915 the offices were shifted to Delhi but in 1916 they were again removed to Dehra Dun. Government of the U.P. to Government of India, Home Department, 10 December 1924, in ‘The Communal Situation’, Home Poll., File 140 of 1925, N.A.I.

18 A Committee was formed to elect delegates to the All-India Hindu Mahasabha Conference later in the month. The committee included: Rampal Singh, President, Pt. Jagat Narayan, and G. N. Misra from Lucknow; Sapru, Chintamani, Madan Mohan Malaviya, Munshi Iswar Saran, Sunder Lal Dave, Motilal Nehru, Lala Girdhari Lal Agarwala, Rama Kant Malaviya, secretary, and Lala Ram Charan Das from Allahabad; Moti Chand Gupta and Munshi Mahadeo Prasad from Benares; Lala Sukhbir Sinha from Muzaffarnagar; Lala Bishambhar Nath of Cawnpore and Hriday Nath Kunzru of Agra. The Leader, 24 December 1915.

19 The Bombay city branch was allied to the Hindu Missionary Society, a small and unimportant body run by Jayakar, M. R. and Natarajan, K., which claimed only 55 paid up members in 1923. Bombay Chronicle, 30 July 1923.Google Scholar

20 The Bihar Hindu Sabha, founded some years before 1915, was affiliated as the provincial branch. The Leader, 31 December 1916.Google Scholar

21 Motilal Nehru had canvassed support among the Bengalis in 1910, with some success, to oppose attempts to form a Hindu Mahasabha. Motilal Nehru to Jawaharlal Nehru, 6 January 1911, Nehru Papers, N.M.M.

22 The Leader, 10 March 1914. Writing in 1917, Sir James Meston, the Lieutenant Governor of the U.P., concluded that these social and religious movements, with few exceptions, ‘assumed very little of a political character.’ Minute, 24 October 1917, Home Public A, May 1918, 568–98, N.A.I.Google Scholar

23 The Cawnpore District Association illustrates how local associations were inter-connected. Lala Bishambhar Nath, an Agarwala banker and rais, was president of the Association in 1915, president of the District Hindu Sabha, ex-president of the Vaishya Conference, president of the U.P. Chamber of Commerce of Cawnpore, a leading member of the Sanatan Dharma Sabha, a member of the U.P. Hindu Sabha, the Congress and the Legislative Council, and a patron of all public activities. Dr. Muratilal Rohtgi, a Vaish medical practitioner, held office, at various times, in the Congress, the Hindu Sabha and the Arya Samaj, and was a vice-president of the District Association. A third member of the Association was Lala Anand Swarup, a Kayasth lawyer and an office-holder in the Congress, the Hindu Sabha and the Arya Samaj. A member of the Legislative Council, he was also influential in bar circles and attended the Kayastha Conference. All were active in local government and a number of educational trusts and charities.

24 See Table 1 for detailed background of members of the Committee.Google Scholar

25 Of the 12 members of the Provincial Council, 11 were elected and 1, T. B. Sapru, was nominated. Malaviya and Rampal Singh were the members of the Imperial Council. Home Public D, June 1913, 40, N.A.I.Google Scholar

26 Many of those classified as lawyers, such as Sapru, Gokaran Nath Misra and Brijnandan Prasad, held small zamindaris.

27 Bhargava, Prag ffiarayan, Obituary, The Leader, 5 January and 19 January 1917;Google Scholar District Gazetteer Cawnpofe, XIX, (Allahabad, 1909);Google Scholar Moti Chand Gupta was described by Government as ‘the most important man in Benares after the Maharaja’. Home Public, File 623 of 1925, p. 121, N.A.I.Google Scholar

28 Of the Brahmins, 4 were Kashmiris, 2 Malavis, 1 Gujarati Nagar, 1 Telegu and 1 Kanyakubya, the majority recent immigrants to the province. The Vaish were divided into 3 Agarwals, 3 Khattris and 1 Bhargava.

29 Sundaram, (ed.), Benares Hindu University, pp. 90–1.Google Scholar

30 The Leader, 16 August 1916.Google Scholar

31 The Leader, 10 August 1916. Founded in 1893 the society claimed to have 1,228 members in 1916, of whom 948 were outside Benares.Google Scholar

32 The Leader, 16 August 1916. Rampal Singh was later president of the British India Association of Oudh.Google Scholar

33 Delegates list for the U.P., Report of the Proceedings of the 30th Indian National Congress, Bombay, 1915 (Bombay, 1916).Google Scholar

34 The Leader, 18 March 1917.Google Scholar

35 Barrier, Journal of Asian Studies, XXVI, No. 3, p. 379Google Scholar, argues that the Aryas dominated the pan-Hindu political movement in 1909. However, the attempt to form an all-India body in 1910 failed; by 1915 the Aryas appear to have lost their influence in the movement.

36 The most important secretary and organiser in the Mahasabha was Pt. Deva Ratan Sarma, a Punjabi Brahmin of Dehra Dun. Sarma was a propaganda worker for the Sanatan Dharma movement. The Leader, 10 June 1914.Google Scholar

37 The Sammelan met in 1916, and again in 1917 at Lahore. In 1917 it was amalgamated with the Bharat Dharma Mahamandal of Benares. The Secretary was Pt. Din Dayal Sarma, the founder and first secretary of the Mahamandal. The Leader, 25 February 1916 and 11 April 1917.Google Scholar

38 Farquhar, , Modern Religious Movements, pp. 316–23, and ‘Short Note on the ShriBharat Dharma Mahamandal, Benares’ (The Great All-India Association of the Orthodox Hindus), Home Poll., File 313 of 1925, N.A.I. The Society was patronised by Darbhanga and other landed gentry but the principal movers in the society after 1915, Swamis Gayanand and Dayanand, were suspected of sedition by Government.Google Scholar

39 For an analysis by caste of the Arya community between 1911 and 1931, see Census of India 1931, U.P., XVIII, Pt I (Allahabad, 1933), 500.Google Scholar

40 Sundaram, (ed.), Benares Hindu University, pp. 90–1. Pt. Din Dayal Sarma, of the Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, toured with Malaviya on the Hindu University deputation and the bulk of the privately donated funds to the university were from patrons of the Sanatan Dharma movement.Google Scholar

41 Sukhbir Sinha presided at the session of the Mahasabha at Lucknow in December 1916.

42 Minute by SirMeston, James, 24 October 1917, Home Public A, May 1918, 568–98, N.A.I.Google Scholar

43 The Leader, 24 August 1916. For a comparison of the constitution of Municipal and District Boards and the adverse effect upon Hindu representation see tables in The Leader, 11 and 22 september 1916.Google Scholar

44 Allahabad, Rae Bareli, Unao and Azamgarh. The Leader, 16 August 1916.Google Scholar

45 List of delegates, The Leader, 24 August 1916. Several Kayasths and Kashmiri Brahmins attended the Conference but they were not influential or important.Google Scholar

46 Ibid.

47 The Leader, 11 October, 1916.Google Scholar

48 See report of a meeting of the Moradabad Muslim League organised by Mahomed Yakub. The Leader, 28 september 1916.Google Scholar

49 Home, Poll. D, January 1917, 45, N.A.I.Google Scholar

50 On condition that their community interests were safeguarded by separate and liberal representation in certain of the Councils, the League accepted direct election on a territorial basis. The Muslims were not to vote in the general constituencies. ‘Communal Representation in the Legislatures and Local Bodies’, Home Special, File 24 of 1928, N.A.I.Google Scholar

51 The Muslims asked for 33½ per cent. Malaviya argued for 25 per cent. The compromise figure of 30 per cent was settled on, at the suggestion of Sapru. U.P. Fortnightly report for the second half of December 1916, Home Poll, D, January 1917, 45, N.A.I.Google Scholar

52 Ibid.

53 HomePoll, D Poll, D, August 1918, 28, N.A.I.Google Scholar

54 Appealing for funds in June 1919, Malaviya claimed that the Kisan Association had 450 branches with 3,500 members in the U.P., the Punjab and Bihar. However, the movement appears to have been centred particularly in Allahabad District. C.I.D. Report, 2 February 1920, Home Poll. D, February 1920, 75, N.A.I.Google Scholar

55 This group, centred in Allahabad, was particularly involved with Hindi propaganda and journalism. Tandon, former editor of Malaviya's Abhudhya, was the founder and prime organiser of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan and the Provincial Hindi Conference. S.P. Gupta, a cousin of Moti Chand Gupta and a partner in the family banking concerns, helped finance the Hindi movement.

56 The use of the Muslim Leagues makes nonsense of the communal-secular distinction. Home, Poll. D, September 1918, 40, N.A.I.Google Scholar

57 Home, Poll. D, March 1919, 17, N.A.I.Google Scholar

58 Executive Committee for 1920 elected in November 1919.Google Scholar The Leader, 28 November 1919. The Malaviya and Nehru families of Allahabad and the Misra family of Lucknow together accounted for 10 of the 24 members of the Committee, with 2, 5 and 3 members respectively. With 6 members the Kashmiri Brahmins (K. N. Katju made the sixth), were the largest caste group, followed by the Kayasths with 4, Kanyakubya Brahmins 4, Bengalis 3, Muslims 2, Malavi Brahmins 2, Khattris, Agarwals and Rajputs 1. The Congress was still controlled by a narrow and exclusive group centred in Allahabad, Lucknow and Benares.Google Scholar

59 ‘Note on the Anti Cow Killing Agitation in the U.P., 1913–1916’Google Scholar, Home, Poll. D, November 1916, 52, N.A.I.Google Scholar The report comments that the movement passed from the individual enthusiast to the political leaders and the press. Malaviya was reported to have lectured on the subject.

60 Moti Chand Gupta was president of the All-India Varnashram League which was located in Benares. The Leader, 15 November 1919.Google Scholar

61 Statement by the U.P. Arya Pritinidhi Sabha, The Leader, 20 November 1920.Google Scholar

62 Aryas clashed with the orthodox when Darbhanga refused to permit Swami Shradhananda to address the meeting. The Leader, 14 March 1920.Google Scholar

63 Baij Nath Mithal, an Arya from Meerut, lamented the neglect of the religious function of the Samaj. When it is allowed that local Arya leaders ‘are also engaged in nearly all the other activities of the town, municipal, educational, social and political, you can very realise [sic] the situation the Samaj must find itself in.’ The Leader, 15 April 1920. See also U.P.C.I.D. Report, 23 June 1919, Home, Poll. D, June 1919, 701–04 p. 37, N.A.I.Google Scholar

64 Nath, Narendra, secretary, Punjab Hindu Sabha, to Secretary, Home Department, Government of India, 4 April 1919, Home Public B, October 1919, 112–13, p. 1. Narendra Nath to S.P. O'Donnell, Secretary, Reforms Office, 30 March 1920, Reforms Office B, April 1920, Franchise 104, p. 2, N.A.I.Google Scholar

65 Gandhi had been fostering support in north India since his return to India. In 1915 he spoke at Hardwar in support of the All-India Hindu Mahasabha. In December 1916 he presided at the First All-India One Language and One Script Conference at Lucknow. In April 1919 he became president of a subcommittee of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, to popularise Hindi in the Bombay and Madras Presidencies. He was particularly successful among the Marwari communities in north India. The Marwari Agarwala Conference in 1919 donated Rs. 50.000/– for the spread of Hindi. Home Poll., File 140 of 1925, N.A.I.; The Leader, 6 January 1917, 24 April 1919 and 16 June 1920.Google Scholar

66 The Leader, 8 January 1920.Google Scholar

67 Times of India, 11 September 1920. A correspondent in The Leader was more specific: ‘In fact, as the Lalaji remarked, what the Central Khilafat Committee has done to-day the Hindu Sabha might do tomorrow.’The Leader, 17 September 1920.Google Scholar

68 Article XX, Electorates and Delegates, as amended at the 30th Indian National Congress, Bombay 1915Google Scholar, Rao, M. V. Ramana, Development of the Congress Constitution (New Delhi, 1958), pp. 29–30.Google Scholar

69 See Krishna, Gopal, ‘The Development of the Indian National Congress as a Mass Organization, 1918–1923’, Journal of Asian Studies, XXV, No. 3 (05 1966), pp. 413–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

70 The immediate cause of the riots in October 1917 was the coincidence of the Dusehra and Mohurrum festivals.Google Scholar See Home, Poll. D, November 1917, 30, p. 14, and January 1918, I, p. 13, N.A.I.Google Scholar

71 Almost immediately after the revolt the Arya Samaj began to organise reconversion. In February 1923 the emphasis in reconversion shifted from the Moplah converts to the reclamation of converts in north India. Both the Arya Samaj and the Bharat Dharma Mahamandal of Benares began to counter the missionary activities of the ulama with organised campaigns. See The Leader, 28 October 1921 and 7 September 1923. See also ‘Communal Disorders’, Home Special, File 4 of 1927, pp. 2–17, N.A.I.Google Scholar

72 The Leader, 7 September 1923.Google Scholar

73 A resolution supporting non-cooperation was passed by the conference but withdrawn when Malaviya and Sarma appealed for its repeal. Hindu, 1 September 1921

74 The Leader, 9 November 1921. See also Bombay Chronicle, 16 November 1921. Cow-protection propagandists had been active in the non-cooperation movement since 1920. The annual sessions of the Cow Conference, held in conjunction with the Congress, attempted to secure the inclusion of cow-protection in the Congress programme. The reluctance of Muslim divines to prohibit cow-slaughter increased ill-feeling between the two communities. The campaign of 1921 was directed against the supply of beef to troops in Burma. See Amrita Bazar Patrika, 25 August 1920, and Bombay Chronicle, 7 June 1921.Google Scholar

75 ‘Congress Week in Ahmedabad’, Home Poll., File 461 of 1921, N.A.I.Google Scholar

76 ‘There is at present a wave of political unity, which in my opinion is superficial. Hindu communal interests don't find many champions. Publicists of the present day are political workers and they hesitate to stand up for communal rights. But this is no reason for overlooking them.’ Narendra, Nath to S. P. O'Donnell, Reforms Commissioner, 30 March 1920. Reforms Office Franchise B, April 1920, 104, p. 2, N.A.I.Google Scholar

77 The Leader, 8 October 1920.Google Scholar

78 Singh, Rampal, Lala Sukhbir Sinha and Moti Chand Gupta were elected to the Council of State; Iswar Saran, Lala Girdhari Lal Agarwala, Pt. Radha Kishen Das, Lala Bishambhar Nath, Mahadeo Prasad, Suraj Baksh Singh and Pt. Sankata Prasad Bajpai to the Legislative Assembly; and Krishna Kant Malaviya, Hriday Nath Kunzru, Iqbal Narayan Gurtu, and Lala Anand Swarup to the Provincial Council.Google Scholar

79 Asaf, Ali to Mahomed Ali, 14 December 1923, Mahomed Ali Papers, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.Google Scholar

80 Statement by Kelkar, N. C., Chitpavan Brahmin journalist of Poona, resigning from the Maharashtra P.C.C., 11 August 1922. Hindu, 20 August 1922.Google Scholar

81 Nehru, An Autobiography pp. 104–5.Google Scholar

82 Report of the Gaya Congress, Home Poll., File 18 of 1922, N.A.I. As a means of attracting Muslim support the name of the party was, initially, the Congress-Khilafat-Swarajya Party.

83 Das was reported to have concluded the pact with Sir Abdur Rahim at the house of Abdul Karim. Amrita Bazar Patrika, 12 January 1924.Google Scholar

84 In an interview in the Tej of Delhi in February 1924 Das stated that he and Abul Kalam Azad had been pressing for the amalgamation of the Khilafat organisation with the Congress, ‘but the Ali brothers did not agree’. The Leader, 10 February 1924.Google Scholar

85 Amrita Bazar Patrika, 18 February 1923.Google Scholar

86 The Leader, 30 August 1923.Google Scholar

87 Malaviya was concerned particularly to revive the old connexion between the Hindus of the U.P. and the Punjab. See, for example, Craik, H. D., Chief Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, to S. P. O'Donnell, Secretary to Home Department, Government of India, 20 April 1922, Home Poll., File 861 of 1922, p. 1, N.A.I.Google Scholar

88 Malayiva later claimed that Das had offered him the post of president of the Swarajya Party but, as he was then a follower of the Mahatma, he graciously declined. Amrita Bazar Patrika, 3 April 1926.Google Scholar

89 The members of the Committee were: the Maharaja of Cossimbazar, a prominent member of the Bharat Dharma Mahamandal of Benares and a patron of the Hindu University, from Bengal; Malaviya, Rampal Singh, Moti Chand Gupta and Lala Sukhbir Sinha from the U.P.; Lala Ram Saran Das and Narendra Nath from the Punjab; Dr. Moonje and Jamnalal Bajaj, the leader of the orthodox Vaishnavite Marwaris and a president of the Sanatan Dharma Sammelan, from the C.P. With the exception of the last two, all these figures had been prominent in the Mahasabha before 1920. Hindu, 11 January 1923.

90 Ibid. The provincial organisers were: Malaviya, Lala Sukhbir Sinha, Moti Chand Gupta and Pt. Deva Ratan Sarma from the U.P.; Swami Shradhananda, Pt. Neki Ram Sarma, Lala Hansraj, Dhar Singh, Alam Namdhar, Punjab; N. C. Kelkar and the Shankaracharya of Karvir, Maharashtra; G. S. Khaparde and Jamnalal Bajaj, Berar; Dr. B. S. Moonje, C. P. Marathi; Maharaja of Cossimbazar, Bengal; C. Vijayaraghavachariar, S. Satyamurthi, and A. Rangaswamy Iyengar, Madras; D. Madhava Rao, Andhra; and K. Natarajan, Bombay city.

91 The resolution was cautiously worded to avoid unnecessary offence to orthodox opinion. Malaviya was careful to point out that the resolution ‘did not force them to eat with them or to enter into marriage with them, but to recognize them as one of them, to love them, …’. Ibid.

92 Hindu, 4 January 1923.Google Scholar

93 Convenors were appointed to supervise the work of these subcommittees: Rampal Singh and Durga Narayan Singh of Tirwa, District Farrukhabad, U.P.; Pt. Neki Ram Sarma, Delhi, the Punjab and the North-West Frontier Province; Kunwar Chandkaran Sarda, Ajmer, Malwa and Gujarat; Dr. Baij Nath Chaturvedi, Bengal and Assam; Swami Atma Swarup, Sind; and Dr. B. S. Moonje, the C.P. and Berar. Hindu, 30 August 1923.

94 The All-India Shuddhi Sabha was formed at Agra in February 1923 following the campaign of the Aryas to reclaim the Moplah converts. The Leader, 7 September 1923.

95 When the resolution was under discussion in the Subjects Committee, the orthodox pandits ‘broke into rage, extolling Brahmin supremacy.’ Swami Shradhananda, the most popular personality at the conference, came under attack from the orthodox as the destroyer of the Hindu religion. Hindu, 30 August 1923.

96 The Bharat Dharma Mahamandal revived the Sammelan for the Benares Conference. Hindu, 23 August 1923.Google Scholar

97 The Bharat Shuddhi Sabha was formed at Agra in 1909 by Pt. Bhoj Dutt Sarma, a leading Arya, who had founded a Shuddhi Sabha in Amritsar in 1907 as a branch of the Arya Pritinidhi Sabha. The movement subsided and no mention of conversion was made when the Hindu Mahasabha was founded in 1915. Home Poll., File 140 of 1925, N.A.I.Google Scholar

98 Speech by Bhai, Parmanand, 11th All-India Arya Kumar (Youth) Conference Meerut, October 1921. The Leader, 3 November 1921.Google Scholar

99 See correspondence between Swami Shradhananda and V. J. Patel, General Secretary, Indian National Congress, 23 May and 3 June 1922, File 10 of 1922, All-India Congress Committee papers, N.M.M. [A.I.C.C.].Google Scholar

100 Rampal Singh and Durga Narayan Singh were appointed convenors of the U.P. Organising Committee of the Mahasabha.

101 Between 1907 and 1910 the society claimed to have converted 1,052 Muslim Rajputs. Census of India 1911, U.P., p. 134Google Scholar, quoted in Lala, Lajpat Rai, A History of the Arya Samaj (Calcutta, 1967), p. 121.Google Scholar

102 Hindu, 26 July 1923. Agra was an important centre of the Rajputs. The Kshatriya Upkarini Sabha was founded in Agra in 1887 by Thakur Umrao Singh of Kotla. The Association's newspaper, Rajput, was published at Agra. The Leader, 15 February 1914. In 1923 the editor of the Rajput, Hanuman Singh Raghubansi of Agra, was a member of the Shuddhi Sabha executive. Hindu, 26 July 1923.Google Scholar

103 Hindu, 30 August 1923.Google Scholar

104 The Leader, 17 April 1925.Google Scholar

105 The movement made little progress in the Punjab where communal rivalries were more clearly political in origin. See reports of Provincial Governments on ‘The Communal Situation’, Home Poll., File 140 of 1925, N.A.I. Communal rioting, also, was less frequent and less widespread in the Punjab than in the U.P. Between 1923 and 1926, 8 serious riots occurred compared with 19 in the U.P. Home Special, attached statement on communal disorders, File 4 of 1927, pp. 18–23, N.A.I.

106 Hindu, 30 August 1923.Google Scholar

107 Madras city, Andhra, Kerala, Karnatak, Bombay city, Maharashtra, Gujarat-Kathiawar, Sind and Baluchistan, Bengal, Oudh, Agra, Punjab, Delhi, N.W.F.P., Ajmer and Rajputana, C. P. Marathi, C. P. Hindustani, Berar and Hyderabad, Central India, Bihar, Orissa, Assam, Burma. Amrita Bazar Patrika, 2 January 1924.

108 Ibid.

109 Provincial Sabhas had been formed in the Punjab, Sind, Oudh, Delhi, Bihar, Rajputana, Bengal, Bombay city and Madras. Of the 362 local branches the U.P. claimed 160, the Punjab 65, Bihar 65, Bombay Presidency 22, Central Provinces 16, Bengal 11, Madras Presidency 11, Burma 3, Rajputana 3, Assam, Central India, Kenya, South Africa, England and Mesopotamia, 1 each. Amrita Bazar Patrika, 26 August 1924. An Agra branch was formed in September 1924, The Leader, 1 September 1924, and in Orissa in July 1924, Amrita Bazar Patrika, 4 July 1924.

110 U.P. 550 delegates, including 172 local men from Benares; Bihar 172; Punjab 94; Bengal 46; Delhi 25; Central Provinces 25; Rajputana and Deccan States 22; Bombay 12; Madras 6; Assam 2; Burma, Patiala, Dumraon, Sind, Travancore and the N.W.F.P., 1 each. Total 960. Amrita Bazar Patrika, 23 August 1923.Google Scholar

111 The Leader, 20 April 1925.Google Scholar

112 In 1923 Shradhananda appealed to Sanatan Dharma Sabhas, Arya Samajes and caste associations, including the Rajput, Vaish, Khattri, Kurmi and Ahir Sabhas to elect delegates. Hindu, 9 August 1923.Google Scholar

113 The Government of Bombay reported in 1925 that there were only 8 branches of the Hindu Sabha in the Presidency; Bombay city 1, Maharashtra 3 (Poona, Sangli and Ratnagiri), Gujarat 2 (Kaira and Surat), Sind 1 (Hyderabad), and the Karnatak 1 (Belgaum). Home Poll., File 140 of 1925, N.A.I.Google Scholar

114 Poll., Home, File 25 of 1924 and File 112 of 1925, N.A.I.Google Scholar

115 Curran, J. A., Militant Hinduism in Indian Politics, A Study of the R.S.S. (New York, 1951).Google Scholar

116 The situation was to change in the 1930s when non-Brahmins began to win control of the Congress. The Mahratta Brahmins turned increasingly thereafter to a more militant Hinduism than had been characteristic of the Hindu Mahasabha.Google Scholar

117 Hindu, 22 January 1925.Google Scholar

118 Hindu, 30 August 1923.Google Scholar

119 The Leader, 20 April 1925.Google Scholar

120 Vaidyas were noticeably absent from the Committee. Amrita Bazar Patrika, 15 May 1924.Google Scholar

121 Not a single member of the lower castes was sent as a delegate to the Benares Conference in August 1923. Amrita Bazar Patrika, 15 August 1923.Google Scholar

122 Chaudhuri was a disciple of Mahatma Sisi Kumar Ghose, the father of P. K. Ghose and brother of Motilal Ghose, and a pillar of the Kayastha Sabha.Google Scholar Obituary, Amrita Bazar Patrika, 8 April 1926.Google Scholar

123 Ghose was Secretary of the Sri Banga Dharma Mandal and a member of the Bharat Dharma Mahamandal of Benares. Amrita Bazar Patrika, 14 August 1924.Google Scholar

124 ‘Malaviyaji evidently thinks that the Hindu University will save us, and he is devoting all the money and all the time for the University.’ Lala Lajpat Rai to G. D. Birla, 30 December 1923Google Scholar,Quoted in Birla, G. D., In the Shadow of the Mahatma, A Personal Memoir (Calcutta, 1953), p. 20.Google Scholar

125 The Leader, 10 October 1920.Google Scholar

126 Inder Narayan Dwivedi to editor, The Leader, 21 February 1921.Google Scholar

127 Rama Kant Malaviya was elected president and Dwivedi secretary of the U.P. Kisan Sabha. Motilal Nehru was president, Jawaharlal Nehru, Tandon and Gauri Shankar Misra, vice-presidents, and Kapil Deva Malaviya, secretary, of the Oudh Kisan Sabha. The Leader, 11 January and 11 February 1921.

128 Reeves, P. D., ‘The Politics of Order’, Journal of Asian Studies, XXV, No. 2 (02 1966), pp. 261–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

129 ‘After 1920, however, the Non-co-operation movement was started and so knowingly the work of the Kisan Sabhas was slackened, for, if it was pushed on with the same vigour as at the commencement, there was the likelihood of the kisans and the landlords falling at each other's throats at the critical juncture when they wanted both to unite.’ Speech by Purshottamdas, Tandon, The Leader, 12 June 1924.Google Scholar

130 See Report of the Fifth Annual General Meeting, U. P. Kisan Sabha, 1922. The Leader, 4 February 1922.Google Scholar

131 Report on the Activities of the U.P. Kisan Sangha, from the Secretary, Sangam Lal Agarwala (Swarajya Party M.L.C. and a cloth trader of Allahabad), 10 December 1924, File 23 of 1924, A.I.C.C.;Google Scholar The Leader, 12 June 1924.Google Scholar

132 The members of the committee were, Rama Kant Malaviya, Krishna Kant Malaviya, Inder Narayan Dwivedi, A. P. Dube, and Sangam Lal, the Secretary of the U.P. Kisan Sabha. The Leader, 1 September 1924.

133 The Leader, 11 January and 21 February 1924, 22 November 1925.Google Scholar

134 The Leader, 22 November and 6 December 1924, 23 February and 17 April 1925, 17 April 1926.Google Scholar

135 At the Delhi Jat Conference in 1926 Malaviya appeared on the platform in the company of Birdwood, the Commander-in-Chief. The Leader, 8 January 1926.Google Scholar

136 The Executive Committee of the Sabha contained 17 Swarajya Party M.L.C.s in 1925. The Leader, 24 January 1925.Google Scholar

137 The Secretary of the U.P. Kisan Sabha was more specific. ‘The policy of the Sangha has been not to antagonise the zamindars by saying even one word against them, but to attack the Government in whose hands the zamindars are blindly playing.’ Two members of the Swarajya Party refused to have anything to do with the organisation. Report on the Activities of the U.P. Kisan Sangha, 10 December 1924, File 23 of 1924, A.I.C.C.

138 Malaviya referred to the distrust of the English-educated as early as 1923, adding that it ‘grieved’ him. Hindu, 30 August 1923.Google Scholar

139 Speech by Lala Lajpat Rai, president, Eighth Annual Session All-India Hindu Mahasabha, Calcutta, April 1925. Hindu, 9 April 1925.Google Scholar

140 Nehru opposed the revival of the Mahasabha at Lucknow in August 1923. He criticised the Muslims for allowing the ulama too much latitude in politics which ‘had spoiled the game of politics in no small measure.’ The Leader, 27 August 1923.Google Scholar

141 Home Poll., File 25 of 1923, N.A.I.Google Scholar

142 In Benares, for example, the Swarajya Party, the Hindu Sabha and the Kshatriya Sabha were virtually the same organisation. ‘Often the Secretary of the Kshatriya Sabha takes the chair at meetings of the Hindu Sabha.’ The Leader, 20 July 1925.Google Scholar

143 The Leader, 5 November 1925.Google Scholar

144 Hindu, 16 April 1925. The revolt was led by Din Dayal Sarma.Google Scholar

145 The Leader, 6 May 1925.Google Scholar

146 The Leader, 16 February 1925.Google Scholar

147 The Leader, 11 March 1925.Google Scholar

148 The Leader, 28 November 1925.Google Scholar

149 Hindu, 4 june 1925.Google Scholar

150 The Leader, 6 November 1925.Google Scholar

151 Home Poll., File 112 of 1925, N.A.I.Google Scholar

152 Ibid.

153 Home Poll., File 140 of 1925, N.A.I.Google Scholar

154 Narendra, Nath to Chintamani, 7 June 1926, Chintamani Papers, N.M.M.Google Scholar

155 ‘… the leaders of the party in each council may be trusted to do what is right for them in their own circumstances regard being had to all things. Enacting a rigid code of conduct for all the provinces alike will expose the Council of the Swaraj Party to the charge of thoughtless over centralization in administrative affairs.’ Hindu, 13 January 1923.Google Scholar

156 Home Poll., File 112 of 1925, N.A.I.Google Scholar

157 Das's speech at the Bengal Provincial Conference at Faridpur in May 1925 contained a definite plea for a policy similar in effect to Responsive Co-operation.

158 With liberal powers to nominate and co-opt members of the executive, the president was able to control it.Google Scholar Swarajya Party Constitution, Hindu, 1 March 1923.Google Scholar

159 Nehru never had any intention of reaching a real settlement with the Responsivists. Writing of a Pact concluded between the two parties at Sabarmati in April 1926 he said: ‘A satisfactory settlement has been arrived at with the Responsivists. They wanted a toy and I have given it to them.’ Motilal Nehru to Jawaharlal Nehru, 22 April 1926, Nehru Papers, N.M.M.

160 The Leader, 17 March 1926.Google Scholar

161 Hindu, 11 March 1926.Google Scholar

162 The Leader, 17 March 1926.Google Scholar

163 The Reforms Committee was appointed by the Mahasabha in December 1924 to formulate a scheme for a future settlement of the representation of communities in the Legislatures. The members were: Chairman, Lala Lajpat Rai; Punjab, Narendra Nath and Lala Lajpat Rai; U.P., Rampal Singh, Chintamani and Lala Sukhbir Sinha; Bihar, Rajendra Prasad, Dwarka Nath and Kumar Ganganand Sinha; Bengal, Yatindra Nath Chaudhuri, Braj Kishore Chaudhuri; C.P., Aney and Moonje; Maharashtra, Kelkar and Karandikar; Madras, Satyamurthi; Andhra, T. Prakasam; Bombay, Jayakar and D. V. Belvi; Gujarat, Dr. S. B. Mehta; Sind, Jairamdas. Amrita Bazar Patrika, 2 January 1925.

164 Narendra Nath's presidential address pleaded for political unity. ‘Let not the ship of Hindu consolidation be wrecked on squabbles as to the manner in which the cause of social reform has to be advanced. So far as the protection of our political rights is concerned Conservatives and Liberals are united. I may, therefore, ask the Mahasabha to pause before taking action which may drive our conservative friends from the political platform on which their co-operation is needed.’ Hindu, 18 March 1926.

165 Hindu, 25 March 1926.Google Scholar

166 Bombay Chronicle, 21 September 1926.Google Scholar

167 The Leader, 17 March 1926.Google Scholar

168 The Leader, 27 March 1926.Google Scholar

169 The Leader, 7 May 1926.Google Scholar

170 Notes on the agenda of the Working Committee meeting for 4 July 1926 prepared by Motilal Nehru, 27 June 1926, File G57(iii) of 1926, A.I.C.C.Google Scholar

171 The Leader, 9 May 1926.Google Scholar

172 Santanam, K. to Motilal Nehru, 6 April 1926, File G47 of 1926, A.I.C.C.Google Scholar

173 Ibid.

174 Amrita Bazar Patrika, 26 May 1926.Google Scholar

175 Amrita Bazar Patrika, 18 May 1926.Google Scholar

176 Ibid.

177 Amrita Bazar Patrika, 26 May 1926.Google Scholar

178 Malaviya was president and Krishna Kant Malaviya and Iswar Saran, secretaries. The Leader, 9 June 1926.Google Scholar

179 Rangaswamy Iyengar reported a conversation with K. Rama Iyengar, a close associate of Malaviya: ‘He tells me that Malaviya has already begun to regret his having joined the National Party and he is anxious to keep himself attached to the Congress by whatever means possible.’ A. Rangaswamy Iyengar to Motilal Nehru, 18 June 1926, File G57(ii) of 1926, A.I.C.C.

180 The Members of the Committee were to be Nehru, Malaviya, Rampal Singh, ‘to manage the zamindars’, and two Muslims nominated by Nehru. Bhagwan Das to Motilal Nehru, 2 June 1926, File F13 of 1926, A.I.C.C. See also, Bhagwa Das to Motilal Nehru, 17 June 1926Google Scholar, Ibid.

181 The Leader, 10 June and 29 August 1926.Google Scholar

182 Two replies to the Mahasabha were drafted by Nehru. One restated the arguments that he had advanced at the Mahasabha Conference at Delhi in April, while the second stated that the Congress had made no decision in the matter. It is not clear which was sent, if either. File F24 of 1926, A.I.C.C.

183 ‘It would be suicidal’, Nehru wrote, ‘to tackle the general communal question before the warring communities have declared for a definite policy.’ Motilal Nehru to A. Rangaswamy Iyengar, 27 June 1926, File G57(iii) of 1926, A.I.C.C.

184 Motilal, Nehru to Sri Prakasa, 12 July 1926, File F13 of 1926, A.I.C.C.Google Scholar

185 Sitla, Sahai to Motilal Nehru, 13 July 1926, File F13 of 1926, A.I.C.C. Dube was not a member of the Swarajya Party and had been defeated by a Swarajist for the Allahabad Urban seat in 1923.Google Scholar

186 ‘By the 27th of July we had got 200 members elected for the Provincial Hindu Sabha from different districts … All our members were duly invited to the Provincial Committee meeting to be held on the 1 August 1926. I had come to know from private source [sic] that the strength of the opposite party was between 80 and 90 on the 27th July 1926, and that they had no suspicion that there was any move in the province to capture the Provincial Hindu Sabha. Pt. G. S. Misra happened to go to Mr Ananda Prasad Dube on the 28th July 1926, who knowing him to be our man told him something of the scheme, which was revealed to Sardar Narmada Prasad Singh who became alert and began his work of dishonesty in right earnest. He submitted a list of about 100 Provincial members from Allahabad district after 27th July 1926 which included his servants, students of colleges of Allahabad and Hindu University and teachers of District Board schools and Hindu Sabha schools. He wired some 100 men from outside to come to the meeting … They were even then in a minority. Lastly, they decided to turn out our members on flimsy grounds … In short only 50 of us could enter the hall as they did not know that they were our men.’ Sitla Sahai to Motilal Nehru, 4 August 1926, File F13 of 1926, A.I.C.C.

187 Girdhari, Lal to Motilal Nehru, 11 June 1926, File G57(ii) of 1926, A.I.C.C.Google Scholar

188 Iyengar, A. Rangaswamy to Motilal Nehru, 14 July 1926, File G57(iii) of 1926, A.I.C.C.Google Scholar

189 Girdhari, Lal to Sarojini, Naidu, 30 June 1926, File G57(ii) of 1926, A.I.C.C.Google Scholar

190 Committee: Rampal Singh and Mukat Behari Lal Bhargava, president and secretary Oudh Hindu Sabha, Durga Narayan Singh, Malaviya, C. Y. Chintamani, Krishna Kant Malaviya, Sardar Narmada Prasad Singh, Bhagwat Sahai Bedar and Raghava Das, the last two were defectors from the Swarajya Party. The Leader, 11 August 1926.

191 Letter from Krishna Kant Malaviya, Convenor of the Elections Board, The Leader, 16 August 1926.Google Scholar

192 Committee: Rampal Singh, Mukat Behari Lal Bhargava, Raja Prithvipal Singh, Malaviya, Krishna Kant Malaviya, Hari Krishna Dhaon, Harish Chandra Bajpai, Sankata Prasad Bajpai and Ram Charan Vidyarthi. The Leader, 25 August 1926. Four were members of both committees.Google Scholar

193 The Leader, 16 August 1926.Google Scholar

194 The Leader, 27 August 1926.Google Scholar

195 Lajpat Rai had opposed the resolution on elections at the Delhi conference of the Mahasabha in April. Upon his return from Europe in August he resigned from the Swarajya Party to join the Hindu Sabha party.

196 The Leader, 28 August 1926.Google Scholar

197 Hindu, 16 September 1926. Malaviya proposed that the members of the Council concerned should vote on the question whether the ‘conditions for the acceptance of office are considered satisfactory’. The decision required the approval of a specially appointed central Committee of the Congress of not more than nine members.Google ScholarIbid

198 Malaviya suggested the following for the Committee: Motilal Nehru and S. Srinivasa Iyengar (Swarajya Party); Malaviya and Lajpat Rai (Hindu Sabha); Jayakar and B. Chakravarti (Responsive Co-operation Party); T. Prakasam and Mrs. Sarojini Naidu (Independent-No-change). Of a committee of eight the Swarajya Party was to have two representatives only. Ibid.

199 The Leader, 29 August 1926.Google Scholar

200 The Leader, 15 September 1926. Resolution XIII, Allahabad, 26 December 1888, quoted in Ramana Rao, Development of the Congress Constitution, p. 2.Google Scholar

201 The president was Lajpat Rai, general secretary, Malaviya, joint secretaries, E. Raghavendra Rao (C. P. Hindustani) and Lala Ram Prasad (Bihar). The Leader, 15 September 1926.Google Scholar

202 These three men were the successive presidents of the Mahasabha: Malaviya, 1923–1924; Lajpat Rai, 1925; and Narendra Nath, 1926.

203 Co-operation does not appear to have extended beyond vague promises of mutual assistance at the elections. Hindu, 16 September 1926.Google Scholar

204 A group led by Raghavendra Rao and Shyam Sunder Bhargava seceded from the Swarajya Party to ally with Malaviya. The party manifesto declared that ‘an isolated pursuit of that policy [obstruction] in a minor province is not likely to advance the objective of the Indian National Congress.’ The Leader, 4 August 1926. (My italics.)Google Scholar

205 Caste factionalism in Bihar led to the formation of a branch of the Independent Congress Party. The party was founded, on a visit by Malaviya, by groups who had failed to win Congress preselection, especially a group of Kayasths whose ascendancy within the Congress was under attack from the Bhumihars and Rajputs. Rajendra Prasad to Motilal Nehru, 14 October 1926, File 21 of 1926, A.I.C.C. Bhinodanand Jha to A. Rangaswamy Iyengar, 2 June 1926, File G52(i) of 1926, A.I.C.C.; Gaya Prasad Singh to A. Rangaswamy Iyengar, 1 October 1926, File G57(iv) of 1926, A.I.C.C.

206 Motilal Nehru to A. Rangaswamy Iyengar, 25 June 1926, File G57(ii) of 1926, A.I.C.C.Google Scholar

207 The Leader, 23 April 1926.Google Scholar

208 Ibid. The Central Committee adopted a similar course to that of the Mahasabha. Provincial Committees were allowed to support candidates ‘already in the field’ but these were not to be regarded as nominees of the Khilafat Committee. However, in the Punjab, a Khilafat Elections Board was formed to nominate its own candidates. The Leader, 14 August 1926.

209 Khaliquzzaman, C., Pathway to Pakistan (Lahore, 1961), pp. 85–7.Google Scholar The candidates included Khaliquzzaman, Kidwai, Rafi Ahmad, Sherwani, T. A. K., Ahmed, Bashir Khan, Kalil Ahmed, Imam, Yusuf, Ali, Shaukat and ud-Din, Maulvi Zahur. Pioneer, 26 11, 2 12 and 4 12 1926.Google Scholar

210 Bombay Chronicle, 29 09 1926.Google Scholar

211 A writer in Lajpat Rai's Urdu Bande Mataram drove the point home. ‘But even an ill-informed man knows very well that the Swaraj Party have, in reality, had no more hand in nominating Mahomedan and Sikh candidates than they have in nominating candidates for the Japanese Parliament.’ Translated in the Pioneer, 12 November 1926.Google Scholar

212 The Leader, 17 March 1926.Google Scholar

213 In the backwaters of Orissa party alignments were discussed in terms of ‘the personal inclination of leaders.’ Bhubananda Das to Baghusati Mahapatra, President, Utkal P.C.C., 1 November 1926, File G61 of 1926, A.I.C.C.

214 See Motilal Nehru to Raja Indrajit Pratab Bahadur Sahi, 18 September 1926, File 10 of 1926, A.I.C.C. Nehru was obsessed by the personal element, especially by Malaviya and G. D. Birla. See also Motilal Nehru to Sri Prakasa, 15 February 1927, Sri Prakasa Papers, N.M.M.

215 By 1926 the Swarajya Party had collapsed and as there was little to be gained by reviving it, election work in the Punjab was entrusted directly to the Congress executive. The Leader, 25 March 1926. By October the P.C.C. was split so hopelessly that the committee decided to suspend all Congress work. Pioneer, 3 November 1926.Google Scholar

216 Barrier, , Journal of Asian Studies, XXVI, No. 3, p. 379.Google Scholar

217 See published accounts of the Malaviya-Nehru Negotiations, Hindu, 16 September 1926.Google Scholar

218 The Liberals had no organised campaign as such but Liberal candidates were prominently reported in the The Leader.Google Scholar

219 Lists were published in The Leader, 20 September and 18 October 1926. Twentyfive candidates were set up for the Council and six for the Assembly. The Oudh Hindu Sabha published a separate list which included some not endorsed by the party. The Leader, 20 October 1926.

220 The Lucknow elections were engrossed in caste factionalism. The Brahmins, the Hindu Sabha, and the Kayasths, Swarajya Party, had fought out the municipal elections in 1925. Tewari, a Brahmin, was opposed by a Kayasth advocate. The Leader, 7 December 1925. Mashal Singh was, in addition, a worker for the Rajput Sabha. In 1913 he had founded a Rajput school at Hardoi. The Leader, 13 March 1913.

221 Manjeet Singh, a Rajput trader of Dehra Dun; Lala Bishambhar Nath, a Vaish schoolmaster in the Arya school at Muzaffarnagar; Har Prasad Singh, a Rajput vakil of Banda; Lala Sita Ram, a Vaish lawyer and zamindar of Kheri; A. P. Dube, a Brahmin barrister of Allahabad.

222 The Shri Bhramavarta Sanatan Dharma Mandal of Cawnpore, one of the oldest and most important sabhas in the province nominated two independent candidates, both Khattri raises. The Leader, 25 September 1926.Google Scholar

223 Graham, B. D., ‘Syama Prasad Mukherjee and the Communalist Alternative’, in Low, D. A. (ed.), Soundings in Modern South Asian History (London, 1968), p. 334.Google Scholar

224 Reeves, , ‘The Landlords’ Response to Political Change’, p. 220.Google Scholar

225 The U.P. Congress never published a full and final list of candidates, nor did a list ever reach the Working Committee. Rao, B. Raja to A. Rangaswamy Iyengar, 8 February 1927, File G9 of 1927, A.I.C.C. This estimate is based upon references to party affiliations in various newspapers.Google Scholar

226 Birla, a Marwari industrialist of Calcutta, had old links with Malaviya through his interest in the Hindu University and the Hindi movement particularly, both of which he helped to finance. Kampta Prasad Kakkar, a Khattri barrister of Allahabad, was connected with the Malaviya clan in Allahabad local politics. Lala Prag Narayan, an Agarwal lawyer, millowner and banker, failed in several attempts to win an election to the Provincial Council and in local government, in 1920, 1923, 1925. Moreover, he belonged to the faction in Agra led by Syed Ali Nabi, a Shia lawyer and zamindar. The Leader, 11 November 1920, 16 May 1923, 6 May 1925.

227 The Leader, 4 January 1923 and 14 May 1924.Google Scholar

228 Speaking at a Kanyakubya Conference at Cawnpore in 1924 Dube claimed ‘triumphant and liberal sectarianism to be the bedrock of an effective nationalism.’ The Leader, 15 February 1924.Google Scholar

229 ‘Never was effort on the part of the various communities keener. Kshattriyas, Vaishyas and Jats are pouring money into school buildings… primary education is now entirely in the hands of the Municipal and District Boards. With rare exceptions their only idea is to multiply schools whether decent teachers are forthcoming or not.’ Marris to Reading, 8 September 1924. Reading Papers, Vol. 26, Mss Eur. E238, India Office Library, London.Google Scholar

230 Home Poll., File 187 of 1926, N.A.I.Google Scholar

231 Excluding the Assembly, in the Meerut, Agra and Rohilkhand Divisions, the Congress nominated 15 candidates and the Independent Congress 7, of a possible 23.Google Scholar

232 Anil, Seal, The Emergence of Indian Nationalism: Competition and Collaboration in the Later Nineteenth Century (Cambridge, 1968), p. 342.Google Scholar

233 Seal's emphasis upon the superficial nature of Congress politics before 1920, while it may be true of the Presidencies, does not apply to the U.P. where politics were far from being skin deep. pp. 346–8.Google ScholarIbid.

234 Low, (ed.), Soundings in South Asian History, pp. 6–11.Google Scholar Low's emphasis is misplaced. The professional middle classes, outside the small secular, pro-Muslim group of Kashmiris and Kayasths, were never subservient to a ‘landlordist husk culture’. With the exception of the Liberals, English education was not a unifying factor in provincial politics.