Abstract
This vertically deep study of the Non-cooperation Movement (1920–22) in Bihar is significant in many ways. Notwithstanding the existing studies on colonial Bihar, many aspects still remain under-explored. Roles of the tribal communities along with their internal hierarchies, and the confrontation of the lower bureaucracy (police constables) with the colonial state is Lata Singh’s particularly more significant contribution on the theme. Previously, on this issue of the Non-cooperation and Khilafat Movements in Bihar, there were studies by Imam (1987), and Chaubey (1990), which were limited only to the roles of the Muslims. Presumably because of this, Lata did not touch upon those aspects. She has however benefitted from Imam (1987) in her introductory chapter analysing and tracing the political evolution of Bihar Muslims towards mass-based anti-colonial mobilisations. Intra-regional penetration and variations in the reach of the movement has made this work rich in empirical details. Simultaneously, it has also entered into historiographical engagement with other relevant works of different approaches/schools. Most of the works are concerned with historiographical debates in the introductory chapter. Lata Singh has very beautifully defied this norm partially; she has done it in each of the chapters, yet the chapters are integrated very coherently. Usually, there are rhetorical critiques of the Subaltern school of historiography, whereby some of the tallest of historians have made remarks about them like, ‘happy narrators of tragedies’, ‘disturbing resemblance’ with the Cambridge school, etc. The book under review however has made polite critiques of the limitations of the Subaltern school, without being unreasonably dismissive about their contributions. She therefore makes it a point to add, ‘One cannot overlook the significant contribution made by subaltern studies in widening the scope of nationalism. They bring to the centre the politics of the people and their contribution and help in understanding and assessing mass articulation of nationalism. They highlight the need to examine the thoughts, feelings and aspirations of the subordinated’ (p. 153). She ‘highlights the complex relationship between popular struggles and nationalism, moving beyond the binaries of elite and subaltern nationalism’ (p. 193).
She also offers persuasive critiques of the colonialist and neo-colonialist schools. She clarifies her approach unambiguously:
This work neither accepts some of the basic paradigm of subaltern historians, i.e., ‘duality of the nationalism’ (‘elite’ and ‘subaltern’ nationalism) nor the ‘popular autonomy’. Although it does accept the specificity of the popular level and popular translations of swaraj, but it highlights the complexity of relationship between the Congress and the masses. (p. 154).
Unlike the conventional Marxist historiography, rather than confining to economic reductionism, Lata has delved deeper into the issues of cultural practices through which powerful resistances were offered by the subordinated groups in various many ways. These resistances went on to work towards erosion of the colonial authority and hegemony. Before this movement, fear of British authority was sort of embedded in the people’s psyche. The work under review has attempted to penetrate into the people’s psyche and found out that the Non-coperation–Khilafat Movement made the people increasingly defiant the colonial regime politically besides letting them become confident enough to assert their cultural autonomy.
Thus far we have been reading about the details of the boycotts of court, college, council, and propagation of national education, khadi, and village panchayats as alternative arrangements. Lata has made meticulous entry into the various dimensions of the working of those alternative institutions whereby she has unearthed many tensions embedded in those institutions. She might be taking insights for such contributions of those alternative institutions from various pre-existing secondary works, but the corroboration and substantiation of those issues are offered through primary evidences, by wading through untapped archival sources. While talking of swadeshi education as a domain of cultural autonomy and identity-making, she supplies too many direct and pertinent evidences from archival documents and contemporary newspapers. She asserts that the nationalist education scheme was challenging the ideological basis of the colonial rule and was laying the socio-economic foundations of the future independent India. At the same time she also points out, ‘the emphasis of shedding off foreign association of education led to the projection of Hindi as the symbol of self-identity which had its consequences for anti-Muslim consciousness’ (p. 93). Similarly, while delineating the economic, social, cultural and political significance of khadi, she also elaborates the other side of the issue as to how it also domesticated the women in many cases, besides politicising them in other cases. Moreover, the ‘prostitutes’ were also brought into the fold of the nationalist activities as Gandhi appealed to ‘prostitutes’ to take khadi as a life of dignity rather than of a shame. This is how she raises the issues of gender, of women’s chastity and modesty, and its engagement with the nationalist movements (pp. 114–20). Yet she does not keep herself oblivious of the fact that the ‘nationalist discourse reinforced the patriarchal structure’. Likewise, while focusing on the emergence of large number of village panchayats, she makes a microscopic look into the social composition of those panchayats as to who joined in and which groups/classes stayed away from such nationalist projects. She finds that while mostly the untouchable castes joined in, the dominant and affluent castes stayed away (p. 124). Thus she underlines that these emerging anti-colonial institutions were not much democratic, because of which, in many cases, they were not effective in implementing their decisions. The liquor boycott had also involved many strands. She raises a very pertinent question, ‘why the history of drink and drinking during the colonial period in India has been a subject of almost complete neglect?’; and by way of answering it she reveals that the share of revenue from liquor for the late-colonial regime was second only to the land revenue, and the ‘brunt of taxation of drink was borne by the lower classes’. Thus the liquor boycott campaign hit the colonial economy very hard, and given the fact that certain moral issues were associated with it whereby it was prohibited by almost every religion, it confronted and crippled the colonial regime much more significantly. Thus, many more people who were otherwise not much enthusiastic about becoming anti-British came to be associated with this campaign. Of greater significance was however the fact that unlike the boycott of education, foreign clothes, and the law courts, the colonial regime could not propagate any adverse impact of the liquor boycotts.
Chapter 5 on constables’ resistance to the colonial regime may be taken as the best chapter and also as relatively more significant contribution of this overall impressive piece of work. Their struggle through strikes (hartal) for better service conditions, wages or pay-perks, etc., coincided with the Non-cooperation Movement. She says that predominant social composition of the constabulary comprised mainly the Rajputs, Brahmins and Muslims. This raises two questions in the minds of the informed readers. One, why does the author take Muslims as a religious community without the divisions of upper and subordinated castes; and second, this is a better known fact that after the movement of 1857, there was a conscious colonial practice of encouraging more of lower castes like Dusadhs and Chamars in the ranks of chowkidars and constables. It therefore needed some qualification. Frankel (1989) had very briefly touched upon evolution of policing in colonial India and its impact on the police administration in post-Independence Bihar. In this way, Lata’s work creates temptation to explore various other aspects of the policing in colonial Bihar. This chapter reminds me of another episode whereby two Assistant Jailors of Muzaffarpur named Md. Shafiq and Waris Ahmad had resigned from the services protesting against the treatment meted out to the popular leaders of the Non-cooperation Movement like Shafi Daudi (1875–1949). This also reminds me of another episode of late-colonial Bihar. The persistence of economic discontent not only among the peasantry but also among the government employees, including the law enforcing bureaucracy, had put the colonial regime in difficulties. The Bihar administration was also suffering from acute resource constraints; lower policemen were not getting salaries and the constabulary had gone on strike. Sir Henry Dow, the Bihar Governor (earlier he was the Sindh Governor), wrote to the Viceroy Wavell on 11 June 1946 complaining that the annual budget for Sindh and Bihar were the same whereas Sindh had only 4.5 million of population and Bihar had 36 million; as a result of which there was neglect of public works; besides, the government employees like the school teachers in Bihar were getting a meagre salary of ₹7.5 a month, with dearness allowance of ₹4 only, that too being paid ‘only intermittently and in arrears or even not at all’ and the state apathy added to the people’s discontent. Arguably, these factors also contributed towards crippling the colonial power and authority making it difficult for them to continue in India (I have elaborated upon these issues in my forthcoming monograph, Contesting Colonialism and Separatism: Muslims of Muzaffarpur, Bihar, since 1857).
Even though this work concerns itself with the processes rather than personalities, it would have been of greater help if Lata could have thrown light on the emergence of many nationalist leaders who emerged right during the Non-cooperation Movement and who went on to become the ‘makers of modern Bihar’ even after Independence. They include Shri Krishna Sinha (1887–1961), Anugraha Narayan Sinha (1887–1957), Abdul Qaiyum Ansari (1905–74), Prof. Abdul Bari (1882–1947), Mahesh Prasad Sinha (1900–71), Binodanand Jha (1900–71), Abdul Wadud (d. 1955), Maghfur Aijazi (1900–67), and many others. In fact, most of the Muslim leaders of the national movement in Bihar had emerged during this movement. One of the few notable exceptions was Syed Mahmud (1889–1971) who had made himself known in the first decade of twentieth century as a student of the Mohammedan Anglo Oriental College (now Aligarh Muslim University) where he had confronted the Muslim League as well as the British administrators of the college rather more spectacularly. The roles of the Imarat-e-Shariah, and many other aspects have not been touched upon in sufficient detail by Lata Singh. This omission makes Muslim presence and participation in the movement rather thin in her otherwise rich account. While Lata’s work helps us understand and anticipate the Congress–Kisan tension from late 1930s onwards, it does not concern itself much with the rise of Hindu and Muslim communal forces, which would raise their heads after the Non-cooperation–Khilafat movements.
The comprehensive use of unconventional sources like the leaflets, pamphlets (including versified ones), and some of Hindi memoirs like those of Rambriksha Benipuri (1899–1968) and their cogent analysis of all these sources have made this book highly informative, readable, and the prose is enjoyable as well (For this, the copy-editor of Primus Books should also be commended). Benipuri’s memoir Mujhe Yaad Hai (1978) narrates how Gandhi’s image of possessing divine powers were circulated through rumours in his native village of Muzaffarpur, which helped making people more defiant against the colonial authority and hegemony. Lata has used his Granthavali but seems to have missed this particular aspect which is otherwise an important concern of her book. Despite being a highly professional reference book of history, this penetrative work is equally much interesting for the readers of other discipline.