Chatto on the make-up of princes, landlords, spies, businessmen, and religious reactionaries that populated the Simon Commission, meant to investigate British rule in India.

‘The Indian Circus in London’ by V. Chattopadhyay from International Press Correspondence. Vol. 10. No. 45. October 22, 1930.

Notwithstanding the break-down of the “peace” negotiations with the imprisoned Congress leaders conducted during 8 weeks by the Viceroy’s agents, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and M. Jayakar, as well as by Mr. Slocombe, ostensibly correspondent of the “Daily Herald” but really an agent of the “Labour” Government, the Imperialist Circus euphemistically known as the Indian Round Table Conference is to begin in London on November 10th, and some 65 of the best trained Indian animals of various species have been chosen to perform, in order to advertise the indispensability of the British trainer that holds these mutually hostile animals back from devouring one another. The fiction of the “Round Table” is being deliberately maintained, so as to create the belief that the “representatives of India” (!) are to discuss matters as equals with the representatives of Great Britain. And the “Daily Herald”, the organ of the imperialist “Labour” Party, even declares–in thick type–that “the Indian representatives will be in a big majority, both at the Conference itself and in the Committees”. But no amount of imperialist lying can conceal the facts (1) that the persons who are coming from India have not been elected by any organisations or groups in India, but have been deliberately and carefully chosen by the Imperialist Government; (2) that these persons are well-known lackeys, who as princes, landowners, commercial magnates, political agents or fomenters of religions strife are intimately bound up with the imperialist exploitation of the masses.

Even those absolutely ignorant of India may draw instructive conclusions from the biographical notices of these 65 Indians, that have appeared in the London “Times”. The following statistical analysis of the list is sufficient to show the true nature of the representatives of “India” whom the “Labour” Government has invited to a Conference to settle the fate of the “Indian people”.

Ruling Princes…10
Great Landowners…5
Agents (all knighted) carrying out British Imperialist policy in Indian States…6
Agents carrying out British imperialist policy in foreign countries…5
Politicians who are “Ministers” or ex-Ministers…7
Politicians who have cooperated in Imperialist Commissions (Hunter, Selbourne, Whitley, Sandhurst, Linlithgow etc.)…7
Politicians who have cooperated with the Simon Commission when it was boycotted by all parties…7
“Liberal” Politicians representing great business or landed interests…19
Number of persons (excluding the 10 Princes) with British titles (Baronet, Sir, Rao Bahadur, Nawab, etc.)…29
British Commercial interests…3

Religious Groupings.

a) Muslims (of whom 9 anti-Hindu propagandists)…11
b) Orthodox Hindus (anti-Pariah and anti-Muslim)…4
c) Anti-Brahmin…5
d) Sikhs…2
e) Indian Christians…1
f) Parsis…2
Anglo-Indians (Eurasians) supporting Imperialist rule…1
Indian “Women”…2
Industrialists…1
Burma (Separationists only)…4

We are unable to ascertain how many of the 65 Indians invited are in the Imperialist Secret Service, but it would be an insult to British Imperialism to believe that a Conference of this kind could take place without a certain proportion of secret service agents.

In order to understand the full significance of the analysis given above of the various categories of persons constituting the Indian “delegation”, a few explanatory notes are necessary, The Conference is expected to last two months and is intended by the Imperialist Government to perform the same function internationally as Volume I of the Simon Report. The object of Volume I was to create the impression of diversity, disruption and mutual hostility in India, in order to justify the continuation of British domination. The Indians that have been chosen for the Conference will make speeches and hand in memoranda to confirm the lies contained in the Simon Report, and thus provide Europe and the U.S.A. with “proofs” of the British imperialist thesis.

The Indian National Congress is not represented at this stage of the Conference, but it is, according to a Free Press telegram, expected that the Conference will evolve a sufficiently acceptable formulation regarding “Dominion Status” to enable the Congress leaders to participate at a later stage. The classification given above makes it quite clear not only that no representative of the working class or of the peasantry has even been “invited”, but that even the Indian millowners and merchants are unrepresented, the only Industrialists invited being a Parsi millionaire who is an ex-Member of the Council of State and does not voice the opinions of the industrial magnates of Bombay and Allahabad, organised in the Millowners’ Association, or the merchants organised in the Indian Chambers of Commerce and the various Merchants’ Associations. As far as “Labour” is concerned the first list published included the name of that highly unscrupulous Swarajist politician, Diwa Chaman Lall, who has used the Indian working class and the trade union movement in order to obtain a better position under the imperialist Government. After having coquetted with “radical” phrases for some years, he split the Trade Union Congress last year. He gave up the defence of the Meerut prisoners in order to join the Imperialist Whitley Commission. If his name was published, it was certainly because he had privately expressed his willingness to perform in the Circus. But he now declares that he cannot take part because the peace negotiations have broken down. In this way he has managed to keep one foot in the imperialist camp and the other in the Congress camp, and he will undoubtedly work hard to draw the two camps closer together.

As for Indian women, there are no representatives at all, for the two females that are to be displayed have never done any work in the women’s or any other movement, but have been chosen solely on anatomical grounds, because one is the wife of an Indian Minister and the other the daughter of another Indian Minister. Burma is represented by persons that have been advocating separation from India at any price which exactly corresponds to British imperialist poly today–but not by any representatives even of the “moderate” section of the G.C.B.A. (Grand Council of All-Burmese Associations). The “Liberal” politicians all represent big business or landed interests and not one of them would dare to appear before a mass gathering in India, although they are described as “leaders”.

Among the imperialist agents in foreign countries, special interest attaches to Sir Abdul Qayyum who has worked years to bring the North Western Frontier tribes under British rule and to advance the British frontier into Afghanistan. The Hon’ble Mr. Srinivasa Sastri, the only Indian member of the Privy Council, appears wherever a brown lackey is necessary–South Africa, Geneva, Washington, London, while His Highness the Aga Khan not only helps to popularise Britan’s splendid rule in India among the demi-mondaines of the Continent, but to “protect” Muslim interests against the Hindus In this latter respect there is no figure so disgraceful as that of Maulana Mohamed Ali, who had for years led the Muslins to fight for independence from British imperialism, and who as late as the Summer of 1928 sent a declaration to the Intern national Secretariat of the League Against Imperialism which he said that it was “the duty of every true Muslim to overthrow imperialism wherever it was found and in whatever form it manifested itself”. Today he asks the Muslims of Arabia to fight for independence and the Muslims of India to accept a compromise with British Imperialism! It is stated on good authority that there has been a change for the better, in his financial condition during the last two years.

These are only a few brief comments on the performers in the Imperialist Circus, but enough has been said to show what a low farce is being staged by Ramsay MacDonald in an attempt to crush the Indian masses. The Labour Party, like all the other Imperialist-Fascists of the Second International, do not want Britain to withdraw from India, for then the Indian workers and peasants would be “left to the tender mercies of the Indian Bourgeoisie”. But they have no hesitation in coming to an agreement with the same bourgeoisie and landowners for jointly oppressing and exploiting the Indian masses. It is impossible to understand how any self-respecting British worker can continue to belong to a Party that is so unashamedly carrying out the business of imperialist robbery in the Colonies.

International Press Correspondence, widely known as”Inprecorr” was published by the Executive Committee of the Communist International (ECCI) regularly in German and English, occasionally in many other languages, beginning in 1921 and lasting in English until 1938. Inprecorr’s role was to supply translated articles to the English-speaking press of the International from the Comintern’s different sections, as well as news and statements from the ECCI. Many ‘Daily Worker’ and ‘Communist’ articles originated in Inprecorr, and it also published articles by American comrades for use in other countries. It was published at least weekly, and often thrice weekly.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/inprecor/1930/v10n45-oct-02-1930-inprecor-Virginia.pdf