REINVENTING HISTORY

  Komagata Maru’s Role Denied  

Muralidharan

HISTORY shapes attitudes and determines our consciousness. History has always been fashioned to suit a particular form of thinking. As historian Bipan Chandra  succinctly  puts it, “the terrain of history is central to right wing political projects. Remove communalism from the BJP, and it would become any other party.”  Negating the role of certain individuals and historical events also forms part of this attack on history and historians. It is therefore not surprising when the BJP and its mentor the RSS are systematically trying to redesign history to suit and further its rightwing sectarian agenda both by supplanting their version of history leading to communalised consciousness and delinking the people from democratic politics. 

Murli Manohar Joshi or his HRD ministry is not involved this time. The culprit this time however, is Advani and his ministry of home affairs.  The episode in question pertains to the deposition made by the ministry in response to a Public Interest Litigation filed in the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.

The union home ministry has adopted the stand that the Komagatu Maru incident has no “connection” with the freedom struggle. The ministry was responding to PIL C.W.P. No. 8377 of 2003 filed before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The petitioner, Malwinder Jit Singh, a researcher who has published several books on the freedom movement has prayed for freedom fighter status for the survivors among the travelers of the Komagatu Maru.

TRIVIALISING AN ENTIRE EPISODE

The stand taken by the Government of India is outrageous to say the least. In the statement filed by Lakshmi Kurup, under secretary, home ministry, the government has trivialised  the entire episode and seeks to see it  merely as a question of “eligibility” for grant of pension. An attempt is being made to belittle the extreme sacrifice and exemplary courage and determination displayed by the passengers in course of their struggle against the British occupiers.  Rejecting the contention of the petitioner, the government statement says: “Merely because occupants of the Kamagata Maru left the country in the year 1914-15 and spent some amount & suffered some sort of assault does not establish that they participated in the freedom movement or there is any connection with the freedom struggle.” It thus seeks to detach the incident from the historical context in which it occurred.

The chartering of the ship, the grit, dogged determination and indomitable courage displayed by the passengers in the face of the countless obstacles and severe hardships served as an inspiration to the intensifying freedom movement. But the dispensation at the centre which seeks to negate the role of a variety of freedom fighters and promote its own brand of freedom fighters like Savarkar, thinks otherwise.

THE BACKGROUND

Before 1908 between five and six thousand Indians had entered Canada. But many had crossed over to Washington, Oregon and California in search of work. By 1914 not more than two thousand remained in Canada.  A majority of them were Punjabis. The racist and exclusionist policies of the Canadian government ably assisted by the media had led to a situation where calls for stopping the “brown invasion” gained momentum. The British Columbia government passed stringent laws directed at discouraging Indians to migrate to Canada. The principal devise used was the Continuous Journey Provision of the Immigration Acts of 1908 and 1910. Under this provision a person wishing to migrate to Canada had to undertake a continuous journey from his or her country of origin. Another condition was also stipulated that they should be in possession of 200 Canadian dollars (a huge amount then) at the time of landing. Since there was no direct shipping service from the Indian shores to Canada, this virtually blocked their entry into Canada. Even spouses or children of the immigrants already settled there were prohibited from joining them due to this discriminatory provision. Under the provisions of another bill Indians were denied the right to vote, prohibited from running for public office, serve on juries and were not permitted to become accountants, lawyers or pharmacists.

In 1911 the ministerial association of Vancouver set up a special committee to go into the question of Hindu (Indian) migration to Canada. The committee concluded that Indians are different and cannot mix with Canadians. It believed that the admission of spouses would mean the establishment of a permanent colony of these people. The committee was against giving franchise to those who have domiciled there because according to them, their votes would go en bloc to those who advocate a policy of favouring their entry and right to citizenship. It was unanimous that Indian immigrants are a menace to Canadian national life. The reasons for keeping them out were clearly political.

THE KOMAGATA MARU CHALLENGE

Though it was not the intent of the passengers to defy the Canadian immigration law, the chartering of the Komagata Maru, a Japanese ship, by Gurdit Singh, an affluent Hong Kong businessman was a direct challenge to the orchestrated feeling of insecurity that was being created in Canada by the immigration of Indians as also to expose the British claim that its subjects could move freely within its empire.

The ship departed from Hong Kong on 4.4.1914 with 150 passengers. With passengers boarding from Shanghai, Port of Moji and Yokohama the total reached 376 by the time it reached Vancouver.

Two sets of receptions awaited the ship when it anchored at Vancouver on May 23, 1914. With the exception of 20 returning residents and the ship’s doctor and his family, the Canadian authorities did not allow the other passengers to disembark and wanted to them to go back. The Indians on the other hand had lawyers, money and other provisions on their side. $5000 was raised from among the Sikhs of Vancouver. Subsequently another $20,000 was raised to pay the Japanese ship owners to retain the ship in the harbour.

While the petition of the passengers was being heard in court, the government made abortive attempts to gain control of the ship. The passengers however foiled such attempts. A police boarding party on the Sea Lion was driven off by the passengers with a barrage of coal and fire bricks. The government then brought in the HMCS Rainbow and aimed its guns at the Komagatu Maru. But this did not deter the determination of the passengers.

After the British Columbia Court of Appeal rendered its verdict against the passengers, the ship was forced to leave Canadian shores on July 23, 1914. It was a sad moment for both the 352 passengers on board as well as their supporters on Canadian soil. After being refused permission to land by the governments of Hong Kong and Singapore the ship headed for Calcutta.

GHADAR INFLUENCE

The plight of the passengers moved many an Indian in Canada and strengthened their resolve to fight the imperialists. The Ghadar party was working among the Canadian immigrants and had also helped the Komagata Maru passengers.  Passengers had received copies of the Ghadar weekly that was available at various ports with a Punjabi population. As Sohan Singh Josh writes in The Tragedy of Komagata Maru (People’s Publishing House, 1983) “It is also true that Bhai Balwant Singh, one of the three deputationsts to the Imperial governments returning to Canada, traveled in the Komagatu Mara from Moji to Kobe and told the passengers about the British imperial and India governments’ attitude towards their mission and talked about the general political and social situation in India. It is also on record that Gyani Bhagwan Singh and Maulvi Barakatullah, both well known Ghadar Party revolutionaries – met the passenges on board the Komagatu Maru at Yokhama Port and apprised them of the real situation in Canada and America and their political programme.”

Ghadar hero Sohan Singh followed the Komagata Maru on its return journey and secretly contacted the passengers at Yokohama.  He had met Harnam Singh Gujjarwal and Daljit Singh and many other passengers and handed over 200 pistols and 2000 rounds of ammunition to be carried to India for furthering the cause of the freedom movement. As Sohan Singh reveals: “But a small number of the passengers had outwitted the cunning police. They had pistols and ammunition with them – despite Gurdit Singh’s repeated warnings to the contrary. These audacious men hid them in the ship’s water tank after wrapping them up in waterproof sheets. Nobody it seems knew this secret except the hard core of the revolutionaries.” A continuous search over a period of three days by the British authorities at Calcutta failed to trace anything. “All that the police party could find was a few torn pages of the Ghadar weekly.” The exclusionist policies of the Canadian government had turned Gurdit Singh, an affluent businessmen into a political hero within a span of a few months.

FALLOUT IN INDIA

The exclusionist policy of the Canadian government, the duplicity of the British imperialists had aroused anger in India. The Komagata Maru’s voyage was watched with keen interest. Earlier, a deputation of three Punjabis which had come to India to present their grievances before the government of India familiarised the Indians about the problems confronting them in Canada. Wherever the members of the deputation went, people and local leaders thronged to hear them. This angered the then Lt. Governor of Punjab, Michael O’Dwyer who wrote: “They held meetings throughout the province some of which were attended by many men of undoubted loyalty. But after a time the tone of these meetings changed. Instead of reasonable criticism of the immigration laws, the speeches became menancing and inflammatory.”

The arrival of the ship at Calcutta and the ordeal they were put to further incensed the ire of the passengers.  After being ordered to anchor at  Kulpi, a distance of about 26 miles from Calcutta, the passengers, their baggages and the entire ship were thoroughly searched for three consecutive days. Thereafter, the ship was removed to Budge-Budge and moored there and the passengers asked to disembark.

THE BUDGE BUDGE MASSACRE

On being informed that they were being transported by train to Punjab from Budge Budge, the passengers grew suspicious, as all trains for Punjab left from Howrah junction only. When the authorities refused to relent to the passengers request to allow them to proceed to Calcutta, the passengers proceeded on foot to Calcutta. Outnumbered, the police walked alongside the passengers while waiting for reinforcements to arrive. Enroute a car carrying the Bengal government’s chief secretary stopped them. The chief secretary promised to hear their grievances but only at Budge Budge. The passengers walked back to Budge Budge. While in the midst of their prayers at Budge Budge an officer made his way through the congregation. When he failed to heed to the repeated warnings by the passengers to wait till they concluded, a passenger snatched the lathi from his hands. The officer responded by taking out his pistol and firing two bullets. A passenger snatched the pistol and shot the officer dead. Hearing the commotion the white troops began raining bullets on the passengers leading to the death of 19 passengers and injuries to 23 others. The Story of the Komagata Maru, 1914, published by the Director of Publicity, Government of West Bengal, 1952, has the following to say on the incident: “The British troops fired from close range 177 rounds of .303 bore. The Sikhs must have been mown down, and the number of casualties is bound to have been heavy, as was widely believed by Indians at the time of the incident. But the number of deaths amongst the Sikhs officially reported was only twenty, of whom eighteen died as a result of wounds from service rifles.”

While many of them were arrested some including Gurdit Singh managed to escape.

TRAVESTY OF FACTS

While it is true that the initial intent of the passengers was to secure immigration to Canada, the voyage and consequent hurdles put in by the British administration politicised the passengers and highlighted the duplicity and exclusionist policies of the British colonisers. It helped in generating hatred against colonial rule and galvanised the atmosphere.

As Harkishan Singh Surjeet, in his letter to the prime minister on the subject points out: “To claim that sufferings of the passengers `does not establish that they participated in the freedom movement or there is any connection with the freedom struggle’, is therefore patently untrue. It displays not just crass ignorance of India’s struggle for freedom but insensitiveness to the entire issue. It is nothing but a display of a servile mind-set.”

In his letter dated March 3, 2004 Surjeet also requested the prime minister to “prevail upon the union home ministry to file a revised statement submitting that the confrontation with the British imperialists was of a political nature and did form part of the movement for freedom. Granting of pension is one thing. But to deny the role of the Komagata Maru in the history of our freedom struggle is a travesty of facts.”

Almost all those who escaped the Budge Budge massacre or came out after serving their jail terms joined the anti-imperialist movement. Majority of the survivors either joined the communist party or became its sympathisers.

The Komagatu Maru became a household word, a symbol of sacrifice and selfless dedication for India’s cause for freedom. The Komagatu Maru passengers began to be looked upon as heroes to be emulated. The budge budge massacare was a foretaste of things to come.  Those bent upon rediscovering the likes of Savarkar would rather do away with this history and detach it from its historical context.

SPURIOUS PENSIONERS

While dishonouring genuine freedom fighters the RSS-BJP has sought to bestow unwarranted status on spurious freedom fighters. Such persons obviously are none other than their own men.

A retired IPS officer, Prabhakar Sinari, infuriated at the grant of freedom fighter status to some RSS people, reveals that in 2001, 115 RSS men were brought under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme for their purported involvement in the liberation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. Sinari, a participant in the freedom struggle in Goa, in an article in The Indian Express of November 4, 2003 writes that historical records prove that it was the underground groups in Goa and the locals who did so. According to Sinari “The honouring of these RSS workers contradicted the Indian government’s affidavit in the International Court of Justice, the Hague, that no ‘‘Indian nationals’’ were involved in the Dadra and Nagar Haveli operation and that it was entirely an internal uprising against the Portuguese.”

Further “There was not a single RSS volunteer with the United Front of Goans or the Goan People’s Party. It’s only the AGD that used their services. The number of such RSS volunteers would have been 40-45. Of these about 15, mostly from Talegaon arrived at Silvassa on August 3, 1954, after its liberation. They dragged out the priest of Silvassa church, disgracing the movement.”

Sinari alleges that the centre has decided to sanction the Samman Pension to 4,000 persons from Maharashtra and another 6,000 from other states for offering satyagraha in Goa during 1954-55. He says that the bulk of the satyagrahis could not even reach Goa’s borders because of a Bombay government ban.

When clemency seekers, fictitious participants and even opponents of the freedom struggle are honoured can there be place for bonafide participants? It will be a sham to place both of them on the same pedestal. Is this the government’s reasoning in denying the role of the Komagata Maru?