Jump to content

India House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rueben lys (talk | contribs) at 15:22, 11 July 2008 (cleanup). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For Indian High Commision in London, see India House (Indian High Commision in London).

The India House was an informal Indian nationalist organisation that existed in London between 1905 and 1910.[1] Initially begun under the patronage of Shyamji Krishna Varma as a student residence at Highgate, in North London, its major objective was to promote nationalist views and work among the Indian students in Britain. India House became a centre for intellectual and political activists, rapidly developing to be an organisation that became a meeting ground for radical Indian nationalists in Britain at the time.[2][3][4] It was considered to be one of the most prominent centres for revolutionary Indian nationalism outside India.[5]The Indian Sociologist, published by India House, was a noted platform for anti-colonial work and was banned in India as "seditious literature".

The India House was the beginnings and the "point of support" of a number of noted Indian revolutionaries and nationalists,[5] most famously V.D. Savarkar, as well as others of the like of V.N. Chatterjee, Lala Har Dayal, V.V.S. Iyer, M. P. T. Acharya, who were, over the next decades, key members of revolutionary conspiracies as well as the founding fathers of communism in India.[6]India House came to be the focus of Scotland Yard's work against Indian seditionists and also under the scanner of the nascent Indian Political Intelligence Office. India House ceased to be a potent organisation after its liquidation in the wake of the assassination of William Hutt Curzon Wyllie by Madan Lal Dhingra, a member of the India House. This event marked the beginning of the Metropolitan Police's crackdown on the activities of the organisation, and a number of its activists and patrons, including Shyamji Krishna Varma and Bhikaji Cama, moved to Europe from where they carried on works in support of Indian nationalism. Some Indian students, including Har Dayal, moved to the United States. The network that India House founded was key in the Hindu-German Conspiracy in India during World War I.[7]

Background

File:Image delegates INC1885.jpg
Delegates at the first session of Indian National Congress, Bombay, 28–31, December, 1885.

Nationalism had been on the rise in India throughout the last decades of the 1800s as a result of the social, economic and political changes that were instituted in the country through the greater part the Century. The result was the realisation and refinement of the concept of Indian identity.[8][9][10][11][12]

Nationalism in India

The concept grew especially rapidly in the last two decades, with the foundations of the Indian National Congress in India in 1885 by A.O. Hume, and it grew to become a major platform in India for airing the demands of political liberalisation and increased autonomy, as well as an important platform for social reformers.[13] The nationalist movement grew to be particularly strong, radical and violent in Bengal and Punjab, along with smaller but nonetheless notable movements in Maharashtra, Madras and other places of South India.[13] The controversial 1905 partition of Bengal also had widespread political impact. It was a further stimulus for the radical nationalist opinion in India and abroad and became a driving force for Indian revolutionaries.[14][15][16]

Indian nationalism in Britain

From very early on, the Congress also sought to inform and seek the support of public opinion in Britain for political autonomy in India.[13][17] The "British committee of the Congress" published the organ India, which provided a platform for moderate (or loyalist) opinion and demands, and sought to inform the British public on the Indian situation. The committee also started the Indian parliamentary committee in the British Parliament which sought to influence the opinions of British parliamentarians and politicians.[18][19] In its aims, however, the committee was largely unsuccessful, prompting British socialists including Henry Hyndman to advocate the adoption of more radical approaches.[18] The committee also drew criticisms, most prominently from Indian students in Britain, for its cautious approach.[17] It was at this time, during the political upheaval caused by the partition of Bengal, that the first foundations of the India House were laid in London by a nationalist Indian lawyer, Shyamji Krishna Varma.

Krishna Varma was an admirer of Dayanand Saraswati's approach of Cultural nationalism, and also admired Herbert Spencer, believing in his dictum that "Resistance to aggression is not simply justified, but imperative".[20] A graduate of Balliol College, Krishna Varma had after his return to India in 1880s served as administrator (Divan) of a number of Princely states, including Ratlam and Junagadh. He preferred this to working directly under what he considered service to the alien rule of Britain.[20] Differences with Crown authority and British resident to the states, however, led to Krishna Varma's dismissal following a supposed conspiracy of local British officials at Junagadh.[21] He chose to return to England, where he found freedom of expression more favourable. His views were staunchly anti-colonial, offering support for the Boers during the Boer war in 1899.

India House

File:Shyamji Krishna Varma.jpg
Shyamji Krishna Varma. Krishna Varma's nationalist outlook was the main driving influence in founding India House in 1905.

The British committee, while achieving some successes in bringing to British attention the questions of civil liberties in India, was nonetheless deemed to be remote from the emerging Indo-centric movement and the questions of self-governance in India and thus drew criticisms from both nationalist leaders operating from India (including Bipin Chandra Pal), as well as Britain.[19]

Indian Home Rule Society

The formation of the Indian Home Rule Society (IHRS) by Shyamji Krishna Varma,[22] along with substantial help from Bhikaji Cama and S.R. Rana,[23][24] aided the path of foundation of the India House.[19] The Society was intended to be a rival organisation to contest the vicarious activities of the British Committee. The India House was, initially, established to house the Home Rule Society. It was a large Victorian Mansion at 65 Cromwell Avenue, Highgate, North London, and provided accommodation for thirty students.[2]

The Home Rule Society was open for membership "to Indians only", and found significant support amongst Indian students and other Indian populations in Britain. It was a metropolitan organisation, with a written constitution modelled after Victorian public institutions,[25] and its stated aim was to "secure Home Rule for India, and to carry on a genuine Indian propaganda in this country by all practicable means".[26] It recruited from amongst young Indian activists, collected money, and may have been collecting arms and maintaining close contact with revolutionary movements in India.[17][27] It also professed support for Turkish, Egyptian and Irish republican nationalism, and with these movements Krishna Varma was able to establish close relationships from very early on. This would later influence the activities and the international networks of India House both in Britain and abroad. 1905 was also the begining of the Paris Indian Society, which was opened as a branch of the IHRS under the patronage of Madam Cama, Sardar Singh Rana and B.H. Godrej.[28] It was through Paris that a number of the India House's subsequent prominent members including V.N. Chatterjee, Har Dayal and Acharya and others had their first bruch with the IHRS. Cama herself was a resourceful woman, nurturing close links with the French Socialist Party and Russian socialists in exile in Paris.[28] In 1907, Cama attended the Socialist Congress of the Second International at Stuttgart where, seconded by Henry Hyndman, she demanded recognition of self-rule for India, famously unfurled one of the first Flags of India.[29]

See also: Paris Indian Society

The Indian Sociologist

Main article: The Indian Sociologist
See also: Shyamji Krishna Varma
The Indian Sociologist published on August 1909. Guy Aldred was prosecuted for his comments on this issue purportedly supporting Dhingra and supporting anti-colonial anarchism.

With the foundations of IHRS, Krishna Varma also began at this time a scheme for scholarships to Indian students in memory of Indian leaders of the 1857 uprising, for which the only condition attached was that the recipient would not, upon return to India, accept any paid post or honorary office from The Raj.[20] These were complimented by three more scholarships in memory of Rana Pratap Singh offered by S. R. Rana, each then worth Rs 2000.[30] In 1904 Krishna Varma had founded The Indian Sociologist (TIS), a penny weekly (with Spencer's dictum as its motto[20]), as a counter-weight against the British Committee's The Indian.[17] The name of The Indian Sociologist was possibly intended to convey Krishna Varma's conviction that the ideological basis of Indian independence was to be the discipline of Sociology.[31] TIS itself was critical of a moderate approach of loyalists and their appeals to British liberalism, exemplified by the work of Gopal Krishna Gokhale, and the TIS made strong arguments for Indian self-rule. It was also critical of the members of the British committee, who as ex-members of the Indian Civil Service were in Krishna Varma's views complicit in exploitation of India.[17] The Indian Sociologist quoted extensively from British writers, whose works Krishna Varma interpreted at length to support the views of colonial exploitation of India and of the Indian right to oppose this, if necessary by violence and assassinations.[17] The freedom of the press and the liberal approach of the British establishment at home meant Krishna Varma could air views that in India would be rapidly suppressed.[17] However, Krishna Varma initially propounded his views and justifications of political violence in nationalist struggle as the last resort, and his support was initially intellectual.[32]

Nonetheless, the views expressed in TIS drew stinging criticisms from ex-ICS officials in the British press and Parliament, who pointed out Krishna Varma's citing of British writers and lack of any allusion to Indian tradition or values to draw conclusions of intellectual dependence on Britain, and suggested Krishna Varma was disconnected from the Indian situation and Indian feelings.[4] Most famously, Valentine Chirol, editor of The Times, accused Krishna Varma of preaching "disloyal sentiments" to Indian students, and demanded his prosecution.[33][3] Chirol would some time later describe the India House as "The most dangerous organisation outside India"[34][18] Although John Morley, the liberal Secretary of State for India, refused to take action at the time, Chirol's tirade against TIS and Krishna Varma forced the Government to investigate the matter.[32] Detectives visited the India House and interviewed the printers of The Indian Sociologist. An apprehensive Krishna Varma believed these to be the beginnings of a crackdown on his work and, fearing imminent arrest, moved to Paris in 1907, never to return to Britain again.[3][21]

Savarkar

Main article: Vinayak Damodar Savarkar
File:3411.jpg
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Along with Krishna Varma, he was to become one of the most important revolutionary figures among expatriate Indians.[35]

With Krishna Varma in Paris, the organisation was to soon find a new leader in Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. A law student, a protégé of Tilak, and an admirer of Mazzini, Savarkar had arrived in London in 1906 on a scholarship from Krishna Varma.[4][36][37] He had behind him a strong association with the nationalist movement in India, founding in his student days the Abhinav Bharat Society (Young India Society) while still a student at Fergusson College in Pune and meeting (then relatively unknown) Gandhi in 1906.[38][39][40][4] Although his "firebrand" nationalist views initially failed to endure him to the residents—most prominently V.V.S. Iyer—Savarkar grew to be the central figure in the organisation.[41] His efforts at the time have been divided into nationalist writings, organising public meetings and initiating secret Indian societies.[42] Savarkar's newsletters to India written between August 1906 and November 1909 occupy a prominent part of his collected works.[42] He kept in touch with the movement in India through his brother Babarao Ganesh Savarkar, and through him, Savarkar's work found its way to the extremist Congress leaders of the time as well, including Bal Gangadhar Tilak. Impressed and influenced by the histories of the Italian wars of Independence, Savarkar's thoughts were directed at an armed revolution in India, with German arms if need be.[43] He also proposed at the time the indoctrination of the army as the Young Italy movement had indoctrinated Italians soldiers of the Austrian Army.[43] In London, Savarkar founded the Free India Society (FIS), and in December 1906 he opened a branch of the secret Abhinav Bharat Society.[36] This organisation drew a number of radical Indian students, including P.M. Bapat, V.V.S. Iyer, Madanlal Dhingra, V.N. Chatterjee,[44][36] Savarkar also visited Paris often, and by 1908, he was able to bring to the folds of his organisation Indian businessmen then residing in the city.[45] Significantly, he was also able to acquire a copy of the bomb manual that was given by the Russian revolutionary Nicholas Safranski to a Bengali revoltuionary in Paris, Hem Chandra Das.[45] Savarkar is also known to have met Gandhi while in London, and his hardline views may have influenced Gandhi's opinion on nationalist violence.[16]

Transformation

Main articles: Free India Society and Abhinav Bharat Society

Under Savarkar, the Abhinav Bharat Society and the relatively benign front of the Free India Society rapidly developed into a radical meeting ground quite different from the IHRS. It was wholly self-reliant, and under Savarkar's influence drew its inspiration and ideology from the Indian revolutionary movement, from religious scriptures such as the Bhagavad Gita, and from Savarkar's own studies in Indian history including The Indian War of Independence.[25] Savarkar also translated Giuseppe Mazzini's autobiography into Marathi and extolled the virtues and efficacy of secret societies.[33] The FIS had a semi-religious oath of initiation, and served as a cover for the Abhinav Bharat Society, which met on Sundays.[44]


India House was soon transformed into the headquarters of the Indian revolutionary movement in Britain.[2] Its members at this time were drawn from the young Indian diasporaS in London who came from all over India.[46] Nearly seventy names were known to have been regular attendees to the meetings. A large number, almost a quarter each, were from Bengal and Punjab, while a significant but smaller group came from Bombay and Maharashtra.[46] Most were students in their mid-twenties, and belonged more often than not to the social elite of India, including those from families of millionaires, mill owners, lawyers and doctors. A few women were also known to have been members of the group. The predominant group was Hindus. The Sunday night meetings were selected for lectures by Savarkar on topics ranging from the philosophy of revolution to bomb-making and assassination techniques.[2] Only a small proportion of these recruits to the society were known to have previously engaged in political activity and the Swadeshi movement in India.[46]

With its numbers increased and becoming a potent force, Savarkar's group began work in earnest. Abhinav Bharat Society had two fold aims, first of all to engage in propaganda in Britain, Europe and America in support of Indian independence and to create an Indian public opinion and spirit in favour of nationalist revolution and insurrection; and secondly to raise funds for arms and acquire technology and knowhow to sustain a revolution.[35] It emphasised actions of self-sacrifice by its members which were to be directed towards India. These were to be activities which the masses could emulate, but which did not require an advance mass-movement to be in place.[46] The outhouse of India House was converted to a "war workshop" where chemistry students attempted to produce explosives and manufacture bombs, while the printing press was used to print "seditious" literature, including bomb-making manuals and pamphlets expounding violence and assassination of Europeans in India. Also in the house was an arsenal of small-arms that were intermittently dispatched to India through different avenues and couriers.[2] Savarkar was at the heart of these, spending a great deal of time in the explosives workshop and emerging on some evenings, according to a fellow revolutionary, "with telltale yellow stains of Picric acid on his hands".[47] The residents of India House and members of Abhinav Bharat also practiced shooting at a range in Tottenham Court Road, and rehearsed assassinations they planned to carry out.[47]

Through various emissaries, arrangements were made to ship arms to India. These included, among others, a number of shipments of Browning Pistols sent through Chaturbhuj Amin, Chanjeri Rao, and through V.V.S. Iyer when he returned to India. Sympatheitc Europeans may also have served as couriers.[48] Revolutionary literature was shipped under false covers and from different addresses to prevent these from being traced by Indian postal authorities.[47] Savarkar's The Indian War of Independence was also published (in 1909) and was seen as inflammatory enough that it was removed from the catalogue of the British Library to prevent Indian students from accessing it.[49]

By 1908, the India House group had managed to take over the London Indian Society, established in 1865 by Dadabhoi Naoroji. In the annual general meeting, the members of the India House packed the meeting and ousted the old-guard of the society which till then was the main association of London Indians.[50]

Culmination

Cover of the Paris Bande Mataram following Madanlal Dhingra's execution in August 1909. The Paris Indian Society replaced the India House as the hotbed of seditious activities in the continent after 1909.


The India House's activities, however, did not go unnoticed. In addition to questions raised in official Indian and British circles, Savarkar's unrestrained views and correspondences were published in newspapers such as Daily Mail, Manchester Guardian and Dispatch. By 1909, India House was coming under surveillance from Scotland Yard and Indian political intelligence, and its activities were considerably curtailed.[51] Savarkar's elder brother Ganesh Savarkar was arrested in India in June that year, and was subsequently tried and transported for life for publication of seditionist literature.[52] Savarkar's speeches grew increasingly virulent and called for revolution, wide-spread violence, and murder of all Englishmen in India.[52] The culmination of these events was the assassination of William Hutt Curzon Wyllie, the political aide-de-camp to the Secretary of State for India, by Madanlal Dhingra on the evening of 1 July 1909, at a meeting of Indian students in the Imperial Institute in London.[52] Dhingra was arrested and later tried and executed. In the aftermath of the assassination, the India House was rapidly liquidated. The investigations into the assassination were expanded to look for broader conspiracies originating from India House and although Scotland Yard stated that none existed, Indian intelligence sources suggested otherwise.[53] It was further suggested that Dhingra's intended target was John Morley, the Secretary of State for India, himself. Further, a number of sources suggested the assassination was infact Savarkar's brainchild, and that he planned further action in Britain as well as India.[53] Police and political sources brought pressure on the residents to leave England. While some of its leaders like Krishna Varma had already fled to Europe, others like Chattopadhyaya moved to Germany. Many others moved to Paris.[54] The Paris Indian Society gradually grew to take the India House's place as the power house of Indian nationalism in the continent.[55]

Counter measures

Initially, although the content of The Indian Sociologist made the aims of India House abundantly clear, the threat arising from India House was not considered serious enough for either Indian intelligence or British Special Branch to pursue the matter with any urgency.[49][56] This was compounded by a lack of clarity and communication from the Department of Criminal Intelligence operating in India under Charles Cleveland, and Scotland Yard's Special Branch.[49] Lack of direction and information from Indian political intelligence, compounded with reluctance on part of Lord Morley to engage in postal censorship,[57] led to Special Branch initially severely underestimating this threat.[57]

Scotland Yard

In spite of the initial underestimation, as well as the fact that Special Branch was wholly inexperienced in dealing with political crime,[56] the first observations of India House by Scotland Yard had begun as early as 1905. Detectives attended Sunday meetings at India House as early as May 1907 where they acquired access to seditious literature.[57] It was the visit of one such agent to Krishna Varma, under the guise of an Irish-American by the name of O'Brien, that convinced Krishna Varma of the need to decamp to Paris.[57] It was not until June 1908 that concrete plans for cooperation between Indian and British police was decided between India Office and Scotland Yard and the decision made to place an ex-Indian policeman for surveillance of India House.[58] The arrival of Bipin Chandra Pal and G.S. Khaparde in London at this time further stirred the matter since they were known to be "extremists" in India. By September 1908, an agent had been put in place within India House, who was also able to invite detectives to the Sunday night meetings of the Free India Society (attendance for Europeans was by invitation only).[58] The agent was able to pass on some additional information, but was not able to infiltrate into Savarkar's inner circle. Savarkar himself did not come under special scrutiny as a dangerous suspect till November 1909, when this agent passed on information about discussions of assassinations at Indian House. The agent may have been a young Maharashtrian by the name of Kirtikar, who had arrived at India House as an acquaintance of V.V.S. Iyer, ostensibly to study dentistry in London but actually as an informer. Kirtikar was discovered after Iyer made enquiries at the London Hospital where he was supposed to be training, and was one night forced by Savarkar to confess at gun-point.[59] After this, Kirtikar's reports are believed to have been regularly screened by Savarkar before they were passed on to Scotland Yard. It is believed that M.P.T. Acharya was at this time instructed by V.V.S. Iyer and V.D. Savarkar to set himself up as an informer to Scotland Yard, which they reasoned would allow them to carefully feed information to the police and also help them provide a corroboration to the versions of reports that were being sent by Kirtikar.[41][45] Although it pursued Indian students and shadowed them quite avidly, the Scotland Yard drew severe criticisms at this time for its incapability to penetrate the organisation. Further the Viceroy's secretary, William Lee-Warner, was assaulted twice in London, once slapped in the face in his very office by a young Bengali Student of the name Kunjalal Bhattacharji, and subsequently assaulted in a London park by another Indian student. These events were also blamed on the perceived inefficiency of the Yard.[58]

Department of Criminal Intelligence

Unknown to Scotland Yard,[60] the Indian Department of Criminal Intelligence (DCI) had also made efforts to infiltrate India House by the beginning of 1909, with more success. An agent designated "C" had by this time been residing in India House for nearly a year, and after convincing the residents that he was a genuine patriot, begun reporting back to India.[60][61] Reasons suggested as to why DCI did not inform the Yard include an intention not to interfere with the local police investigations in London, not to lose the full control that it had over C, and also not to stand accused of "deviousness" by the Yard.[60]

Cs initial reports in early 1909 were, however, of little value. It was not until the months immediately preceding the assassination of William Hutt Curzon Wyllie that his repots outlined the hitherto unknown goings-on at India House. In June, he described the shooting practice at Tottenham Court range, as well as rifle-practice with air-rifles at a range in the back of India House. This was followed by reports of V.V.S. Iyer and Savarkar's advice to M.P.T. Acharya on acts of martyrdom.[60] Following the arrest and subsequent transportation of Savarkar's elder brother Ganesh Savarkar in India on 9 June 1909,[52] Cs reports note that Savarkar's speeches grew increasingly virulent and called for revolution, wide-spread violence, and murder of all Englishmen in India.[52][60] In the following weeks, Savarkar was barred from joinining the bar due to his political activity. These were the events that led up to the assassination of William Hutt Curzon Wyllie. It is believed that Savarkar may have personally instructed or trained Madanlal Dhingra, but police were unable to bring a prosecution against him.[62]

Indian Special Branch

In July 1909, in the aftermath of Curzon Wyllie's assassination, Special Branch was reorganised following a meeting between India Office and the Commisioner of Police Sir Edward Henry. This saw the opening of a special India section of the Branch. By the end of July, the Indian Special Branch had a strength of 38 officers.[63] It committed considerable resources over the course of the investigation of Curzon Wyllie's assassination, which at the end satisfied the demands and expectations of Indian Criminal Intelligence from Scotland Yard with regards to checking the Indian seditionist movement in Britain.[63] The police brought strong pressure on India House and began active surveillance and intelligence gatherings on Indian students in London, including through landladies and through paid informants. These, along with threats with regards to career, were enough to rob India House of its support base of students. It slowly began to disassemble, and —– as Thirumal Acharya described bitterly —- the residence was treated akin to a "leper's home" by the Indian students in the city.[64] In 1910, Savarkar was arrested upon his return to London from Paris and deported to India.[65] In addition, although student political activism could not be curtailed too heavily for fear of accusations of repression, the British Government at the time successfully implemented censorship and custom laws to curtail the publication and distribution of nationalist and seditious material from Britain. Among these was Bipin Chandra Pal's Swaraj, which was forced to close down, an event which ultimately drove Pal to penury and mental collapse in London.[64] The India House gradually ceased to be a potent organisation in Britain.

Influence

The India House's political activities were chiefly aimed at young Indians, especially the Indian student in Britain. Political discontent was at the time growing steadily amongst this group, especially those who were touch with Indian professionals and studied in depth the concepts and philosophies of European politics and liberalism.[66] This discontent was noted amongst British academic and political circles quite early on, with fears that these students would take refuge in extremist politics.[66]

Nationalist movement

Gradually after its foundations in 1905, the India House's influence among this student group grew considerably, while still under the stewardship of Shyamji Krishna Varma.[67] Indian students who provided insights into the community at the time confessed to a growing influence of the India House — especially in the scenario of the 1905 partition of Bengal — and attributed to this the decrease in the number of Indian applicants for Government posts and the Indian Civil Service.[67] The Indian Sociologist is believed to have attracted considerable attention amongst London newspapers.[67] Others however disagreed with these views, and describing the India House's appeal as limited. S.D. Bhaba, president of the Indian Christian Union, once described Krishna Varma as a man "whose bark was worse than his bite".[67] However, under Savarkar, the influence of the organisation grew, and it is accepted to have grown to be the center of the Indian revolutionary movement abroad, as well as one of the most important and dangerous links between revolutionary violence in India and Britain.[67][52][65][62] The organisation welcomed not only those of extremist views, but also moderatists, as residents. The former nonetheless outnumbered the latter.[67] Significantly, a number of the residents, especially those who were noted to have agreed with Savarkar's views, did not have any history of nationalist movement behind them in India, indicating they were indoctrinated during their stay at India House.[46]

More significantly, the India House was a source of arms, and seditious literature that was rapidly proscribed in India. In addition to The Indian Sociologist, pamphlets like Bande Mataram and Oh Martyrs! by Savarkar extolled revolutionary violence. Direct influences and incitements from India House were noted in a number of incidences of political violence and assassinations in India at the time.[68][49][69] One of the two charges against Savarkar during his trial in Bombay was for abetment of the murder of a government official by the name of A.T.M. Jackson, while other activists such as M.P.T. Acharya and V.V.S. Iyer were also noted in the later Rowlatt report to have been directly involved and influenced other political assassinations.[68] The activities of nationalists abroad is also believed to have quite strongly shaken the loyalty of a number of native regiments of the British Indian Army.[70] The India House and its activities also had some influence on the subsequent Nonviolent philosophy that was adopted by Gandhi.[16] He had met some members of India House, including Savrkar, in London as well as in India, and disagreed with the adoption of nationalist and political philosophies from the west. Gandhi dismissively labelled this revolutionary violence as anarchist and its practitioners as "The Modernists",[16] and some of his subsequent writings, including Hind Swaraj were in opposition to the activities of Savarkar and Dhingra and against the argument that violence was innocent if perpetrated under a nationalist identity or while under Colonial victimhood.[16] It has been argued that it was against and in recognition of the consequences of this strategy of revolutionary violence that the formative background of Gandhian nonviolence was framed .[16]

India Houses abroad

Following the example laid by the original India House, India Houses were also opened in the United States and in Japan.[71] Krishna Varma had been able to build close contacts with the Irish Republican movement, and in the United States, articles from the Indian Sociologist were reprinted in the Gaelic American. In addition, with the efforts of the growing Indian student population and erstwhile members of the London India House, organisations mirroring the India House emerged. The first of these was the Pan-Aryan Association, modeled after the Indian Home Rule Society, that was opened in 1906 through the joint Indo-Irish efforts of Mohammed Barkatullah, S.L. Joshi and George Freeman.[72] Barkatullah himself was also closely associated with Krishna Varma during his previous stay in London, and his subsequent career in Japan also put him at the heart of Indian political activities there.[72] The association at one time invited Madame Cama —— who at the time was close to the works of Krishna Varma —- to give a series of lectures in the United States. An "India House" itself was founded in Manhattan in New York in January 1908 with funds from a wealthy lawyer of Irish descent by the name of Myron Phelps. Phelps had also at one point admired Swami Vivekananda, and the Vedanta Society (established by the Swami) in New York was at the time under Swami Abhedananda, who was considered "seditionist" by the British.[73] In New York, Indian students and ex-residents of London India House took advantage of liberal press laws to freely circulate The Indian Sociologist, and that and other nationalist pamphlets and literature were shipped to other parts of the world.[73] New York increasingly became an important centre for the Indian movement, such that Free Hindustan, a political revolutionary journal published by Taraknath Das closely mirroring The Indian Sociologist, moved from Vancouver and Seattle to New York in 1908, and Das was able to establish extensive collaboration with the Gaelic American with the help of George Freeman before it was proscribed in 1910 under British diplomatic pressure.[74] From 1910, the activities began to decline in the East Coast but gradually shifted to San Francisco. The arrival at this time of Har Dayal bridged the gap between the intellectual agitators and the predominantly Punjabi labour workers and migrants and laid the foundations of the Ghadar movement.[74]

An India House was also opened in Tokyo as early as 1907.[75] The city— like London and New York— had by the end of the 19th century a steadily growing Indian student population, with whom Krishna Varma kept a close contact. However, Krishna Varma was initially reluctant to spread his resources thin, especially since the Japanese centre did not have a strong leadership. He further feared interference from Japan, which was then on friendly terms with Britain.[75] Nonetheless, the presence of revolutionaries from Bengal and close correspondence between London and Tokyo houses allowed the latter to gain prominence in The Indian Sociologist. The India House in Tokyo was a residence for sixteen Indian students in 1908 and also accepted students from other Asian countries including Ceylon, and aimed to build a broad base for Indian nationalism based on pan-asiatic values. The movement gained new momentum after Barkatullah, on the directions from Krishna Varma and George Freeman, moved from New York to Tokyo in 1909.[75] Taking up the post of Professor of Urdu at Tokyo University, Barkatullah was responsible for East Asian distribution of The Indian Sociologist and other nationalist literature emanating from London. He also took charge of publication of Islamic Fraternity, which was financed by the Ottoman Empire. Barkatullah transformed it into an anti-British mouthpiece, invited contributions from Krishna Varma, and advocated Hindu-Muslim unity in India.[76] He also published at this time other nationalist pamphlets which found their way to the Pacific coast and East Asian settlements. Further, Barkatullah established links with prominent Japanese politicians including Okawa Shumei, who he won over to the Indian cause.[76] British CID, aware of the threat that Barkatullah's work posed to the empire, ultimately exerted successful diplomatic pressure to have Islamic Fraternity closed down in 1912. Barkatullah was also denied tenure and was forced to leave Japan in 1914.[76]

First World War

Main article: Hindu-German Conspiracy
See also: Annie Larsen affair, Ghadar Conspiracy, and The German plot

The liquidation of India House through 1909 and 1910 gradually disseminated its members to different countries in Europe, including France and Germany, as well as the United States. The network that the India House founded was to be key in the efforts by the Indian revolutionary movement against the British Raj through World War I. During the war, the Berlin committee in Germany, Ghadar Party in North America, and the Indian revolutionary underground, with the help of Sinn Féin, Japanese patriotic societies, Ottoman turkey and most prominently the German Foreign Office, arranged for men and arms to be shipped from United States and East Asia which were intended for use in a planned revolution in India and mutiny in the British Indian Army. The conspiracy has since come to be called the Hindu-German conspiracy[77][78][79] Among other efforts, the alliance also attempted to rally Afghanistan against British India.[80] A number of failed attempts at mutiny were made in India through 1914-1915, of which the Ghadar conspiracy and the Singapore mutiny remain most notable. The threat posed by the conspiracy was key in the passage of the Defence of India act 1915, and suppression of the movement necessitated an international counter-intelligence operation on part of the British empire that lasted nearly ten years.[81][82]

Indian political intelligence

Main article: Indian Political Intelligence Office

The foundation of this intelligence operation was an intelligence organisation established in London in 1910 under an Indian police officer by the name of John Arnold Wallinger. Wallinger had been the Superintendent of Police at Bombay and was seconded to the India Office, where in January 1910 he established the Indian Political Intelligence Office. Wallinger used his considerable skills to establish to establish contacts with police officials in London, Paris and through continental Europe, and established a network of informants and spies.[83] Later, during World War I, this organisation worked with the French Political Police, the Sûreté,[84] was key in tracing the revolutionary conspiracy, and attempted to assassinate ex-members of the India House (among them V.N. Chatterjee) who were at the time planning for nationalist mutiny in British India.[85] Among Wallinger's recruits during the war was Somerset Maugham, who later mirrored some of his characters and stories on his experiences during the war.[86][87] The organisation itself was renamed Indian Political Intelligence in 1921, and subsequently grew to form the Intelligence Bureau in independent India.

Hindu nationalism

Main article: Hindu nationalism

A branch of the nationalist and revolutionary philosophy that arose from India House, especially from the works of V.D. Savarkar, was also to consolidate in India in the 1920s as an explicit ideology of Hindu nationalism. Exemplified by the Hindu Mahasabha, it was quite distinct from the Gandhian devotionalism,[16] and acquired the support of a somewhat chauvnist mass movement.[16] The Indian War of Independence is considered one of Savarkar's most influential works in developing and framing ideas of masculine Hinduism.[88] It was also during his stay at India House that Savarkar wrote a history of the Maratha Confederacy as an exemplary Hindu empire (Hindu Padpadshahi)[16] Further, Spencerian evolutionism and functionalism that Savarkar was exposed to at India House were to have a strong influence on his social and political philosophy and in laying the foundations of early Hindu nationalism.[35] It charted the latter's approach to State, Society and Colonialism, and Spencerian doctrines shaped Savarkar's philosophy and stress on "rationalist" and "scientific" approach to national evolution as well as extreme aggression and military strength for national survival. A number of Spencerian ideas featured prominently in Savarkar's works well into his political writings and works with the Hindu Mahasabha.[35][89]

References

  1. ^ Popplewell 1995, p. 125
  2. ^ a b c d e Hopkirk 1997, p. 44
  3. ^ a b c Owen 2007, p. 65
  4. ^ a b c d Owen 2007, p. 66
  5. ^ a b von Pochammer 2005, p. 435
  6. ^ Radhan 1997, p. 35>
  7. ^ Abel 2005, p. 115
  8. ^ Desai 2005, p. 30
  9. ^ Desai 2005, p. 43
  10. ^ Desai 2005, p. 93
  11. ^ Desai 2005, p. 125
  12. ^ Desai 2005, p. 154
  13. ^ a b c Yadav 1992, p. 6
  14. ^ Bose & Jalal 1998, p. 117
  15. ^ Dutta & Desai 2003, p. 135
  16. ^ a b c d e f g h i Bhatt 2001, p. 83
  17. ^ a b c d e f g Owen 2007, p. 63
  18. ^ a b c Yadav 1992, p. 7
  19. ^ a b c Owen 2007, p. 62
  20. ^ a b c d Qur 2005, p. 123
  21. ^ a b Johnson 1994, p. 119
  22. ^ Majumdar 1971, p. 299
  23. ^ Innes 2002, p. 171
  24. ^ Joseph 2003, p. 59
  25. ^ a b Owen 2007, p. 67
  26. ^ Fischer-Tine´ 2007, p. 330
  27. ^ Parekh 1999, p. 158
  28. ^ a b MAH. "Two words about one parsi". Dawn group of newspapers. Retrieved 2007-11-04.
  29. ^ Parel 1997, p. xxviii
  30. ^ University of Calcutta 1921, p. 295
  31. ^ Parekh 1999, p. 159
  32. ^ a b Owen 2007, p. 64
  33. ^ a b Yadav 1992, p. 8
  34. ^ Chirol 2006, p. 148
  35. ^ a b c d Bhatt 2001, p. 81
  36. ^ a b c Joglekar 2006, p. 57
  37. ^ Joseph 2003, p. 61
  38. ^ Magadi 2006, p. 199
  39. ^ Jaffrelot 1996, p. 26
  40. ^ Puniyani 2005, p. 212
  41. ^ a b Yadav 1992, p. 11
  42. ^ a b Joglekar 2006, p. 49
  43. ^ a b Joglekar 2006, p. 50
  44. ^ a b Yadav 1992, p. 9
  45. ^ a b c Joglekar 2006, p. 58
  46. ^ a b c d e Owen 2007, p. 70
  47. ^ a b c Hopkirk 2001, p. 45
  48. ^ Jayakar 1958, p. 116
  49. ^ a b c d Hopkirk 2003, p. 46 Cite error: The named reference "Hopkirk46" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  50. ^ Owen 2007, p. 72
  51. ^ Owen 2007, p. 71
  52. ^ a b c d e f Yadav 1992, p. 15
  53. ^ a b Popplwell 1995, p. 131
  54. ^ "Champak-Chatto" And the Berlin Committee". Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. Retrieved 2007-11-04.
  55. ^ Yadav 1992, p. 26
  56. ^ a b Popplewell 1995, p. 127
  57. ^ a b c d Popplewell 1995, p. 128
  58. ^ a b c Popplewell 1995, p. 129
  59. ^ Yadav 1992, p. 11
  60. ^ a b c d e Popplewell 1995, p. 130
  61. ^ Andreas & Nadelmann 2006, p. 74
  62. ^ a b Hopkirk 2001, p. 50
  63. ^ a b Popplewell 1995, p. 132
  64. ^ a b Owen 2007, p. 73
  65. ^ a b Hopkirk 2001, p. 46
  66. ^ a b Lahiri 2000, p. 125
  67. ^ a b c d e f Lahiri 2000, p. 126
  68. ^ a b Yadav 1992, p. 4
  69. ^ Coward 2003, p. 135
  70. ^ Lahiri 2000, p. 126
  71. ^ Fischer-Tinē 2007, p. 333
  72. ^ a b Fischer-Tinē 2007, p. 334
  73. ^ a b Fischer-Tinē 2007, p. 334
  74. ^ a b Fischer-Tinē 2007, p. 335
  75. ^ a b c Fischer-Tinē 2007, p. 337
  76. ^ a b c Fischer-Tinē 2007, p. 338
  77. ^ Strachan 2001, p. 798
  78. ^ Hoover 1985, p. 252
  79. ^ Brown 1948, p. 300
  80. ^ Strachan 2001, p. 788
  81. ^ Hopkirk 2001, p. 41
  82. ^ Popplewell 1995, p. 234
  83. ^ Andreas & Nadelmann 2006, p. 75
  84. ^ Popplewell 1995, p. 216,217
  85. ^ Popplewell 1995, p. 234
  86. ^ Popplewell 1995, p. 230
  87. ^ Woods 2007, p. 55
  88. ^ Bannerjee 2005, p. 50
  89. ^ Bhatt 2003, p. 82

Literature

Further reading

  • Bose, Arun. Indian Revolutionaries Abroad, 1905-1922. 1971. Bharati Bhawan.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India_House&oldid=225029555"