Subject of India and War, 24 August 1939

No. 251  1619/387115-19

The Consulate General at Calcutta to the Foreign Ministry

No. 1756  CALCUTTA, August 24, 1939.
Received August 28.
Pol. VII 1527.

POLITICAL REPORT

Subject: India and a War.

The subject of "India and War" has engrossed the public here particularly deeply for some weeks. Newspapers of all shades of opinion and in all languages are writing about it almost daily and publishing numerous "Letters to the Editor" from all sections of the population; the political parties have taken up the subject and expressed their attitude to it in resolutions; the whole economic life of the country is dominated and restricted by a permanent war scare psychosis. Britain's nervousness, her feverish rearmament and her boasting about being prepared, has also spread to India, even though the practical results, the actual preparatory and defense measures, are rather scanty and inadequate. Many of the steps taken by the British Indian Government (the registration of foreigners, the transfer of British Indian troops to Egypt and Singapore, the ban on goods ordered by State-owned factories and those important for war in Germany, the laying down of an exclusively authoritarian system of government by the Governors in the provinces in time of emergency, the timid attempts to introduce A.R.P. measures, and so on) are clearly destined for the event of war between the democracies and the Axis Powers, of the early outbreak of which every Government official is convinced.

The press, which is systematically guided by Britain, and other media for forming public opinion, have taken good care to ensure that this conviction has become firmly rooted in the minds of the native population of India, together with the further conviction that it is a question of defending the good and sacred cause of democracy and the freedom of peoples against the dangerous and damnable desires of the authoritarian States to attack and subjugate peace-loving nations.

But now politically conscious India-above all Congress-is saying that Great Britain has herself betrayed the cause of democracy. She did not intervene successfully for the preservation of Abyssinia, Red Spain, Czechoslovakia and Albania; above all she has still not given India that democratic freedom which is due to her by human right; she continues to be imperialistic, and so too would be a war waged by Britain. India must not and will not in any event take part in an imperialistic war; Indian troops must not be employed one. [Marginal note by Rintelen: "India will stand behind Britain."]

The Congress Working Committee accordingly passed the following resolution recently:

"The Working Committee have given their earnest consideration to the critical international situation and to the danger of war that overhangs the world in this world of crisis. The sympathies of the Working Committee are entirely with the peoples who stand for democracy and freedom and the Congress had repeatedly condemn Fascist aggression in Europe, Africa and the Far East of Asia, as well as the betrayal of democracy by British Imperialism in Czechoslovakia and Spain.

"The Congress has further clearly enunciated its policy in the eve of war and declared its determination to oppose all attempts impose a war on India. The Committee is bound by this policy the Congress and will give effect to it so as to prevent the exploitation of Indian resources for Imperialist ends. The past policy of the British Government as well as recent developments demonstrate abundantly that this Government does not stand for freedom and democracy and may, at any time, betray these ideals. India cannot associate herself for democratic freedom which is denied to her a which is likely to be betrayed." [The paragraphs in quotation marks are in English in the original.]

Since the dispatch of Indian troops to Egypt and Singapore by the British-Indian Government, for the purpose of assisting in the defense of Indian territory right at its portals in the event of war, runs counter to the anti-war views of Congress, it was decided to boycott the meeting of the Central Legislature due to begin shortly and not to send Congress Deputies to it. This measure is at the same time intended as a protest against the fact that the British Government in India, against the will of Congress and in the usual fashion of course, without consulting the people and their representatives at all, has prolonged the mandate of the present Central Legislature for another year for reasons in which can likewise be seen the fear of war and a time of crisis. There is no need to mention that this protest has left the British-Indian Government quite cold at this time of increased internal political dissension and impotence among the Indian peoples, during which they are in a position to force through, against the wishes of Congress and other parties, everything which seems important to them, ranging from the Anglo-Indian Trade Pact, measures and laws for the defense and government of the Empire in the event of war, to the all-Indian federation which is shortly to become a reality. [The Trade Agreement signed in London, March 20, 1939. For the text see B.F.S.P., vol. 143, pp.283-299.] The split in Congress caused by the break away of the "Forward Bloc" led by the Congress President Bose, who resigned, has been considerably widened as a result of the Congress Executive recently taking disciplinary action against Bose and declaring him ineligible to hold office for three years. Together with his still numerous supporters and partly with those newly joining him, especially in his native Bengal, he is now inevitably in much more pronounced conflict with the circles around Gandhi.

It is now by no means the case that the view reflected in the statement made by the Congress Working Committee on India's attitude in the event of war is that of all Indians, nor perhaps even of the majority of them, although it is shared by many members of other parties and many people who are not members of any party. There are many Indians-particularly in the territories inhabited by the warlike races-who advocate full support for Britain in the event of war, since she will after all be fighting against dangerous Fascism, and to join in would only mean a fight against the threatening Fascist yoke. As a matter of course, if it comes to the point, the Indian Princes will also solidly support Britain. There are, however, Indians -and their number is larger than is generally supposed-who say that India's place in a war is on the side of Britain's enemies; for only thus can freedom be gained. Indeed many recognize that authoritarian methods and friendship with authoritarian States are the right thing, and the means of salvation. Such views are only seldom heard in public, they cannot appear in the press of India, which is nominally free but is strictly supervised by the Government in this respect. For the British know too, that Jinnah, the leader of the Muslim League, who is otherwise not a particularly outstanding personality, recently spoke a very true word when he said that democracy was not suited to India. An authoritarian freedom movement would indeed be a great danger to British rule over India. Yet those Indians who regard this course as the right one are in general, ~with few exceptions, politically just as befogged by theories and are unrealistic and just as unsystematic and unwarlike as their brothers who dream of democratic ideals.

The devoted belief in democracy of the Western-liberal type which Britain has been systematically inculcating into the Indian peoples for years, with the Congress Freedom Movement built upon it, the inevitable hopelessness of which is not recognized by those concerned, is still the best way for Britain to rule India. It will be possible for her to do so in this manner during a war as well, and a slogan reeking with humanitarianism, if sufficiently attractive, will again ensure the moral support of Indian democrats. Britain will in any case employ her Indian troops all the time and everywhere, when and where she finds it necessary. These men, who belong to quite different races from the political opponents of war, whom they despise as weak and racially inferior, are not affected by such talk. They are soldiers by profession and not because of any political ideals.

A copy of this report is enclosed for the Embassy in London.

By order:
DR. PAUSCH

From: US Department of State. Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1918-1945. Series D (1937-1945). Vol. VII. The Last Days of Peace August 9-September 3, 1939. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1956, 263-266.