Archives: PB Rangnekar Recalls The Students’ Movement Of His Time
P B Rangnekar
“The real figures of those receiving even the limited four years of primary education… is 22 lakhs, i.e 0.8 per cent of the population… The number of students in universities and higher educational institutions in British India in 1934-35 was 1,09,800 or 0.4 per thousand of the total population…. The total number graduating in engineering, agriculture and commerce in India in 1934-35 was 960…” (R. Palme Dutt, India Today)
How important were the Congress Ministries under the overall control of imperialism can be seen from the fact that in the” little more that years of 1937-38, 1938-39 and 1939-40, expenditure in Bombay state on Education rose from Rs. 1 crore 68 lakhs to Rs. 2 crores, while that on public health rose from Rs. 24 lakh six thousand to Rs. 28 lakh, during the same period. (Source: India Today)
There you have the genesis of the students’ movement of those years. With all the revoltingly anti-people policies of the Congress regime and the sufferings of our people, the picture sixty years ago was far too bleak and grim. What is worse — with true imperialist cynicism, the British had the audacity to appoint a Commission under Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru to investigate the problem of educated unemployed in India, ostensibly under the impact of the world economic crisis of 1929-33.
The Commission recommended reduction in the number of the ‘educated unemployed’. It was promptly implemented in Bombay, the most “advanced” province under His Majesty’s India, by declaring the results of Matriculation of the Bombay University (the basic qualification for higher education and service then) at 21%, the lowest ever by any standards.
This was the nodal point for the simmering unrest among students to boil over. A massive rally of thousands of students got spontaneously organised and it marched on the portals of the University, smashing its window panes and such. It evoked wide public support as the cause vitally affected the common people. A students’ preparatory committee for a Provincial Students Conference was also formed.
By then, in Punjab too, similar steps were taken. Soon, the All India Students’ Federation (AISF) came into being — its banner proudly bearing the ringing slogans “Freedom, Peace, Progress”, Later, it was affiliated to the Paris-based World Students’ Federation.
Under colonial rule, both freedom and students’ struggle often moved along the same line. Students participation was significant during the 1920 movement, when hundreds upon hundreds of them left their educational institutions and even went to prison. The same was the scenario in 1930. The sudden withdrawal of these movements by the Congress leadership, left the country’s students and youth bitterly disillusioned. This was the period that saw, as a result, the rise of socialism within Congress, the formation of organisations like the All India Kisan Sabha (the AITUC had already formed) and the AISF.
With British imperialism as the common enemy of the people, different trends came to work together. Among this, the mass and Leftist sections, being socially more conscious, knew the value and how to organise student-led struggles. Of course, the character of these demands then was a little different — there were protests against fee hikes (though not very many), right of students to attend political meetings (often the authorities bitterly clashed over this demand, with the students striking), for better treatment in student hostels, and such. So persistent did it become that we were obliged to run a regular feature on students and politics, Students’ Call, the only English-language monthly of the AISF, printing over 1500 copies.
While in day-to-day work, matters went on smoothly, but on important political issues clashes were sharp and frequent. One such notable instance was the communal riots in Bombay in October 1936. The local (BPCC) Congress President, Nariman, demanded the calling of the British Army ‘first’ to quell the riots. We opposed it, since it would have only offered the only and real culprit, British imperialists, a clean chit and certificate of defending the people. A storm arose on the political issues involved. It must be said to the credit of the healthy nationalist instinct of the Congress-minded majority (18 versus 3) in the students’ union, that we could in the end convince them and win them over to a correct anti-imperialist stand.
The clash over whom to vote for in the Assembly elections was bitter, the organisation being divided between support to Congress or AITUC candidates. Even a walk out was staged, during the conference. Nonetheless, organisational unity was maintained.
Betrayal of betrothed word by the Congress-Socialist section in the matter of local Office bearers, saw us in a minority among the Bombay leadership. The CSP later arranged to have Minno Masani, a rabid anti-Communist, to preside over the All India Conference at Madras. Things went on smoothly for a day, till Masani stoutly refused to allow a resolution to be moved welcoming the Soviet Constitution of 1936. This anti-democratic move was denounced and in the end, a demonstration was staged against Masani. The organisation was split due to Masani’s tactics and only personal apologies to Masani two months later restored the unity to continue till 1942 “Quit India” movement.
Another such threat faced the AISF at the Delhi All India Conference in early 1940 after the declaration of war, where Shri Subhash Bose was the President. lt was a well-attended meet and it passed, among other resolutions, one against the war, where Nazism was severely attacked. A section under the apparent influence of Subhash Babu opposed nailing down Nazism, under the plea that the enemy of your enemy was your friend. Even when it was passed by a large majority the next day Subhash Babu allowed it to be re-opened. The Hall now was packed by a non-student majority — a sad reflection on the organisation’s weakness for proper norms. The new resolution was now passed, but with great efforts we averted a split, we were convinced that the new resolution did not reflect the students’ consciousness, who were against the war and fascism, and had also expressed it.
AISF was called upon to present its views and for this, it had Students’ Call. It spoke of the causes of the freedom struggle, struggle against fascism and war and for peace, for a democratic educational system, for students’ right to take part in politics, etc. It took a critical stand against Gandhi’s “Wardha Education” on scientific grounds, though we could not continue it as a section of the Leftist students from Poona firmly opposed even to the extent of a split! Congress Ministers too, for want of a political will and for lack of finances, did not object it.
Unlike SFI today, the AISF there had no well-planned organisational set up — with active central, state or city units, or primary units the base — taking up students’ academic and democratic demands, jobs and education for all, and the like. Not that the AISF did not enrol membership, we did, but was not a key issue for us.
Maybe the basis and overshadowing issue being the struggle for freedom, an issue of active universal interest among students then, our weakness and non-serious approach towards mass membership did not much hamper our mobilisation. Only Bengal, Kerala, Andhra and to an extent Punjab were exceptions to this.
Looking back today on it, one realises the heavy price we paid for this spontaneity. True, even then we could contribute a large number of cadres and leaders to the national, trade union, kisan and other democratic movements. But for the lapse, this could have been much better and more. Our conferences did not take up organisational issues nor laid down any guidelines for it, nor did our national or provincial leadership regularly attend lower committee meetings for this purpose.
Interestingly, though Students’ Call was the official journal of the AISF, its policy, organisation and sale were never discussed by the leadership. All this was left to us in the Bombay unit.
In all our meetings, we stressed the need to fight for independence even at the cost of education, so overshadowing was the issue for the present and the immediate future. We of course did not neglect the academic and democratic issues. The pattern of students flocking in large numbers at political meetings of national leaders was distinct. This was visibly seen when Subhash Babu toured the country after resigning the presidency of the Congress. It was more a response or active struggle for independence, over which the dominant leadership of the Congress adopted a position of bargaining and compromise, never wishing the masses to be active participants.
Events after the Delhi AISF Conference moved fast for then imperialists. Our anti-war posture and struggle was a sore point with them. When we continued to carry on even after their twice imposing heavy fines on our anti-war handbills, they came down heavily. A very heavy fine was imposed on the press and printer of Student’ Call, which forced it to close down. Meanwhile the textile workers of Bombay had observed the World’s first-ever anti-war protest strike and they soon also organised the first general strike of textile workers, for a fight for Dearness Allowance. A month after the strike, we were all arrested under the Defence of India Rules, and detained for two years. During our incarceration, the AISF, badly harmed by the arrest of most of its leadership, held a conference at Nagpur, but it soon ceased to function as an organisation. One phase came to an end after three years, entirely under imperialist repression.
The AISF leadership had only about 3 years to function, to build up its organisation and chalk out its programme. If even as a united organisation, we could not succeed well in this, it was because we did not realize the need for it and also because imperialism did not allow it any chance. This was so even when politics was broadly favourable for it, the organisation was militant and active, had a devoted base of cadres. This is not the occasion for a review of this stage, though it must be admitted that had our perception been better in this regard, had we been more clear of the role of middle class youth, more so the educated section, in the colonial country, we of the AISF would have left a deeper imprint on the national struggle and national politics, given all our objective limitations, precisely because the dominant national leadership played a double role of taking a militant stance only to strike a bargain against imperialism, when the masses demanded marketing orders.
Reviewing our three years struggle after a lapse of almost 60 years, however, we feel happy and to an extent proud also, that we could contribute our humble mite to the national democratic struggle, be it for national independence, of the workers, peasants against class oppression, then almost everything hinged around the struggle for freedom, the students’ problem often assuming a secondary position. The national leadership, true to their class character and background, always bypassed the issue of ‘What after Independence’, leaving it to the future. The general democratic movement was not powerful to counter it.
That so-called future has now turned out to be grim and bleak, to the bitter disillusionment of the student community which has grown vastly in numbers, also facing bigger problems. This is the setting in which the SFI of today has to carry forward the heritage we of the older generation have handed over to them.
History has assigned to us then the task of fulfilling the slogans of ‘Freedom, Peace and Progress” and we have done our humble bit towards that task, shoulder to shoulder with other sections of our freedom-loving people. History has now, in the new setting, assigned new slogans to the SFI, “Independence, Democracy, Socialism”. SFI, with its clearer perspective, better organisation, cadre force is however, having to face tougher problems and is being called upon to achieve the task shoulder to shoulder with other sections of our people. With experience-based hope, I have reasons to feel confident, that they will achieve success.
On behalf of the older generation, I wish them all success.
P. B. Rangnekar was a Joint Secretary of the All India Students Federation (AISF) during the colonial period and a member of the State Secretariat of the Maharashtra unit of CPI(M). A valiant fighter for the cause of the people. P. B. Rangnekar died in 2008. He wrote this article in 1986 and published in Student Struggle.
Follow us for regular updates:
Telegram
t.me/studentstrugglein
Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/studentstrugglemonthly
WhatsApp
https://chat.whatsapp.com/BvEXdIEy1sqIP0YujRhbDR