Komagata Maru-A Challenge to Colonial Rule
- Malwinder Jit Singh Waraich, Advocate
 

— Four sources which deserve some more attention —

An Overview
Constitutional agitation may easily drift into intemperate agitation, intemperate agitation into sedition, and sedition into active revolutionary methods.

Four sources which deserve some more attention:
I. Ghadrites’ trial proceedings
II. Contemporaneous official files at National Archives of India
III. Ghadr Conspiracy Report by Isemonger and Slattery
IV. Contemporary press and related sources reflecting public response

I. Ghadrites’ trial proceedings:
These trials’ records though primarily focussed on the Ghadrites per se also throw significant light on the ship episode both by its insightful observations and quite a few factual details otherwise not available: They pin point the precise role of some of Ghadrites who were directly involved in it.
These proceedings have only recently been published that too in part and are yet to be fully brought into the public domain. The extent to which these publications have been accessed by the researches is an open question.
The idea of returning to India for expelling the British from their motherland, if their grievances were not redressed is shown to be present right since the aborted plan of Indo-Canadian authorities to settle the incoming Indian emigrants in the hellish English Colony — The British Honduras in 1908. A visit of two Indian delegates from Vancouver was stage managed by undercover English spy Hopkinton to the colony whose feedback infuriated the local Indians.
Says the record: “Balwant Singh accused besides four others took an active part in opposing the proposal and that (accused) Balwant Singh, Battan Singh then first mooted the idea of expelling the British from India if the transfer was insisted upon.”
Then in 1911 when Bhai Bhag Singh and Balwant Singh decided to bring along their families from India as a ‘test case’, and were refused entry into India, “it was at this juncture that Bhag Singh and some other started lecturing to Indians to the effect that if the children of settlers in Canada were not allowed to land, Indians should return to India to expel the British.”
Subsequently in March 1913 a three member deputation comprising Bhai Balwant Singh, Narain Singh and Nand Singh Seehia was sent to London and India to plead their case before the Imperial Government in England and also before the Indian Government on the one hand and before the public in general, in England as well as in India on the other: Obviously Punjab was their favourite destination.
Though the delegates drew blank from both the Imperial and Indian Governments, they drew a full throttled response from the public at large in Punjab, so much so that Punjab Governor Sir Michel O’Dwyer was constrained to go on record that even those deemed loyalists were noticed to be amongst the audience.
There is as graphic account of its sojourn in Punjab. About one of such meetings at Bradlaugh Hall at Lahore on 18th August 1913, the Tribunal observes:
“We find that Indians are alleged to be subjected to “inhuman” laws in Canada, and the audience has listened to as “harrowing story of wrongs” from the delegates, and the grievances of Indians are referred to as a “wrong than which no graver can be done by one part of the Empire to another.”
“We are at one with the opinion formed by the previous tribunal that it is probable that Gurdit Singh’s intention in chartering this vessel was partly to create an episode, which would further inflame Indian feeling and we have fuller evidence on this point than was placed before the first tribunal”. (Emphasis added)
While Komagata Maru was on its way to Canada, Bhai Balwant Singh travelled on the ship from Moji to Yokohama and had prolonged exchange of views with Baba Gurdit Singh and Bhai Bhagwan Singh.
Upon ship’s arrival at Vancouver, a meeting was held in the local Dominion Hall in which stirring speeches were delivered inter alia by Bhai Balwant Singh and Hassan Rahim.
Such kind of meetings were held every Saturday in the local Gurdwara and were addressed by local leaders, like Bhai Bhag Singh, Balwant Singh, Mewa Singh.
During Ship’s return journey World War had started and Ghadr Party had sounded the ‘Bugle of War’ on 5th August vide its Ailan-e-Jang.
When the ship touched Yokohama, Baba Sohan Singh Bhakna , President, Ghadr Party contacted the ship leaders to handover 100 revolvers, ammunition and Ghadrite literature to them, which had been delivered on the ship by Kartar Singh Sarabha , who by a ship of the tongue disclosed this to Nawab Khan while they were on his way from Ludhiana to Lahore in December 1914 and the latter did not fail to spill the beans before the Special Tribunal where he testified as an approver.
Kartar Singh Sarabha himself soon followed Baba Sohan Singh on the trail of the ship and met Baba Gurdit Singh on board Komagata Maru at Kobe.

II. Contemporaneous records in National Archives:
Of these records, those which are classified as ‘Secret’ ‘Confidential’ and above all the Weekly Intelligence Reports, whereupon it is inscribed that “(It is recommended that this report be burnt and not kept on record)”, do not seem to have been accessed so far, as per the relevant entries on these files. Therein we find verbatim records of the exchanges amongst the Canadian, British and Indian Governments as also the intelligence inputs about the ongoings on the ship reflecting the mental state of the passengers specially during its return journey.
But why after all did the British authorities, both in England and India put all kinds of hurdles in the way of emigration of their loyal Indian subjects abroad, is well summed up by the Indian chief cop Petrie in his report on Budge Budge:
“It is a matter of Common experience that Indians too often return from abroad with tainted political views and diminished respect for their white masters.” (Emphasis added)
All the same the official stand of His Majesty’s Government in this regard was:
It “…maintained and further recognised as beyond doubt the right of self-governing Dominions to decide for themselves in each case who are to be admitted as citizens of the respective dominions.” (24.7.1914)
Notwithstanding this stand-offish posture of the Imperial Government, a confidential letter from Canadian Government at Ottawa to its own M.Ps. G.H. PERLEY dated 17 July 1914 it is categorically stated that “The Indian Government has always taken the ground that they preferred to have immigrants rejected by Canada than to exercise any control.”
Ironically, it was discovered by the Indian Government in December 1914 much after the Budge Budge tragedy that “…it is well known that the average Indian makes no distinction between the Government of the United Kingdom, that of Canada, that of British India or that of any colony. To him these authorities are all one and the same. So much so is this the case, that this case many of these unfortunate people (passengers) are at the present moment under the impression that the Government of India is responsible for the misfortunes which they have suffered.”
Factually speaking intimate cooperation between the Canadian, English and Indian Governments in the ship episode is evidenced by a secret letter addressed by English spy Hopkinson to Deputy Minister from Interior, Ottawa dated 30th June 1914, referring to a secret report in Urdu from their (planted) medical officer Raghunath Singh, which is intended to be sent to India for translation (for sake of secrecy) stating that “The doctor has given the detailed information on the whole situation and when translated will, I think, be of much interest to all the governments concerned.
P.S. “The matter needs immediate attention, and the enclosed document should be transmitted to England at once for translation.”
Notably the Indian authorities after the Budge Budge tragedy in hindsight lamented that: “There was one point however, on which Raghunath Singh’s letter led us to a wrong conclusion. A perusal of it certainly led us to believe that we should find the majority of the passengers heartily disgusted at the treatment they had received at the hands of Gurdit Singh and only too glad to meet Government half way in its endeavours to help them (sic). This, as events have proved, was a complete misconception, and as I shall show presently, we soon realised that Gurdit Singh’s authority was far more complete and his following far more compact than we had ever imagined.” (Petrie, 8 Oct. 1914).
As the ship departed from Vancouver a letter was sent by Hong Kong Governor to Canadian authorities on 25th July 1914 urging them not to let the ship halt at Hong Kong since: “Not only it is probable that the greater number of them (passengers) will not find employment here, but they are all now apparently disaffected, and it would be highly undesirable to have them in this Colony, where they may CONTAMINATE the Indian troops and the agglomeration of Indians who find employment as private watchmen.”
Consequently, throughout their return journey of two months, the passengers were virtually treated as prisoners and the boarding or deboarding on the ship was made extremely arduous.
Red alert; from Punjab Government to Indian Government vide a letter dated 28th August 1914:
“…that many of the passengers from the “Komagata Maru” would probably be returning to the Punjab shortly, and it is possible that attempts would be made to set up a serious agitation among the Sikhs.”
A VITAL TELEGRAM FROM BABA GURDIT SINGH TO S. HARCHAND SINGH OF LYALPUR AND ‘BENGALI’ NEWSPAPER OF CALCUTTA INTERCEPTED —
TELEGRAM: “Indian leaders should meet Komagata Maru passengers arriving at Calcutta on or about 28th: Move Government appoints Commission of Enquiry to investigate grievances.”
This innocuous communication set the alarm bells ringing at Calcutta and Simla.
Punjab C.I.D. report on post-Budge Budge public reactions:
“Weekly Report of the Director of Intelligence dated 6th October 1914.”
(Note:— It is recommended that this report may be burnt and not kept on record.)

Sikh Politics — The report castigates a Sikh paper of Lahore “The Sher-e-Punjab which outrightly condemned the Government, and eulogises Sardar Bahadar Arur Singh Sarbrah of Akal Takht) in getting a resolution passed by a gathering at the Golden Temple to disassociate themselves from the rioters’ action and reassure Government of their unflinching loyalty and devotion to British Crown.”

III. Ghadr Conspiracy Report (1913-16) by Isemonger and Slattery:
This report though basically dealing with Ghadr movement also provides some vital clues about the pivotal role played by Khalsa Diwan Vancouver and United India League under the leadership of Bhai Bhag Singh, Balwant Singh and Hassan Rahim since 1910 right upto its final denouement in August-September 1914, besides the decisive conclave at Ferozepur Kanya Vidyala during the 1913 visit of the Canadian Delegates, Bhai Balwant Singh, Nand Singh Seehra and Narain Singh wherein the proposal to float own shipping company was finalised. This may contribute to the realisation that the Komagata Maru episode was more broad based, and multi-layered than it is commonly understood to be.
Pertinently, unlike in the case of Ghadrites’ trial proceedings as also in the case of National Archivical records, this report is almost exclusively focussed on Ghadr Conspiracy per se which provides just hints about Komagata Maru, which call for interpretation or elaboration, which of course must at least be plausible if not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in the given context.
Captioned “Grievances of Indian Emigrants in Canada, the first para alludes to the 1910 Ordinance, rendering the entry of Indians to Canada de-facto impossible. …“The fact that more lenient treatment was accorded by the Canadian Government to Japanese and Chinese had also been a subject of discontent.”
“In 1911 a deputation of Sikhs went to Ottawa to represent their grievances before the Canadian authorities, but without result. In 1912 the general discontent was given a strong fillip by the action of the immigration department in refusing to admit the wives of two prominent members of the Sikh Community at Vancouver, namely, Bhag Singh and Balwant Singh.
“At the end of the year (1909) Balwant Singh returned to India and when going back to Canada in spring of 1911 he took along his family with him. Bhag Singh, another Granthi of the temple, and a third man were also accompanied by their families. Balwant Singh and Bhag Singh were admitted, but entry was refused to the women, whose deportation was ordered. There was violent agitation among the immigrants against the inhumanity of separating husbands from their wives and children. (Emphasis added)
Moving on to 1913, it reads “On the 22nd Feb. 1913, owing to the dissatisfaction caused by he failure to obtain redress from the Canadian Government, a man meeting of Indians was held in Vancouver, at which it was decided to depute three delegates to visit England and India in order to represent both to the Government and the people the disabilities under which Indian emigrants were suffering.”
The resolution adopted in the meeting, willy nilly set into motion a chain of events which culminated on 29th September 1914 at Budge Budge. “Resolved that whereas the Dominion authorities have turned a deaf ear to our petitions and delegations requesting them to admit our families into Canada, we, Hindustanis of Canada assembled in a mass meeting under the auspices the United India League and Khalsa Diwan Society, Vancouver appoint Mr. Nand Singh Seehra, Balwant Singh and Narain Singh as delegates to approach the Home Government in London to secure the primary, elementary and vital condition of our domiciled existence in this country, and to remove the disabilities on immigration, and further to seek the co-operation of Indian Government and various other public organisations of India such as Indian National Congress, the All India Hindu Mahasabha, the All Indian Muslim League, the Chief Khalsa Diwan and the Indian public at large.”
This signified a paradigm change in the whole affair — firstly giving up once for all the trust in bonafides of Canadian Government and secondly seeking the cooperation of the widest spectrum of civil society in India making a passionate appeal to the public at large, through a whirlwind tour particularly of Punjab.
The Report: “At the time (1913) the exact importance of the visit of these delegates to India was not fully realised, but it is now apparent that it formed a distinct step in the development of the revolutionary movement and was intended to establish a link of sympathy between Indians at home and emigrants abroad.”
In particular the Lahore Bradlaugh Hall meeting of 18th August drew the ire of Punjab Governor Sir Michal O’Dwyer, particularly since some persons who owed loyalty to the Crown too were present.
Further: “There is reason to believe that the leaders of Indian community at Vancouver, of whom Balwant Singh, Bhag Singh and Hassan Rahim were the most prominent, were anxious to send a large number of Indians to Canada with a view to bringing the grievances of Indian emigrants to a head, and to force the British Government to action. Indeed this very project is believed to have been discussed by the Sikh delegates from Canada while in Punjab.”
Re Ferozepur Conclave: “…it is curious to find that when Gurdit Singh returned to Hong Kong (in Jan 1914) and the Canadian delegates were still in Punjab, he was joined by Daljit Singh, who just prior to this was editor of Punjabi Bhain an official organ of the Sikh Girls High School Ferozepur managed by Bhai Takhat Singh by whom the delegates were entertained when they visited Ferozepur. Daljit Singh became Gurdit Singh’s secretary and subsequently took a prominent part in all his doings.”

IV. Contemporary press, and other sources reflecting public opinion:
These sources reflecting a universal and vocal support of the passengers’ cause by the public at large even by traditional loyalists juxtaposed to the negative attitude towards the Ghadrites who suffered from a gross neglect on the one hand and hostile propaganda by hard-core loyalists, branding them as apostates on the other.
‘Press’ and ‘public opinion’ both being extremely unwieldy, the choice herein in case of both shall admittedly, be arbitrary.
Atypically, the first available press report, an editorial in The Tribune of 29th October 1913, coincides with the public tour of the trio of Bhai Balwant Singh, Narain Singh and Nand Singh Seehra, the three delegates deputed by Indians in Canada for this mission; such a dyed-in-the-wool Empire loyalist papers’ sticking out its neck on such a contentious issue ought to be taken to signify the strength of public sentiment as also its audacity.
Wonder of wonders, this editorial’s captioned “Deportation of Hindus from British Columbia” denotes deep involvement of the paper with the fate of 39 Indians who had landed at Victoria harbour of British Columbia on 27th October 1913, but were taken into custody by the Canadian immigration authorities to be deported back. When they were produced in the court in response to the writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Chief Justice Hunter, whereby they inter se also challenged the legality of Order-in-Council by virtue of which they had been debarred from landing in Canada.
The Chief Justice declared:
(1) That the Order-in-Council exceeded the authority conferred by the statute
and (2) The instant government order exceeds the power conferred in the act.
On the basis of the petition, the 39 passengers were released. A telegram was sent to Bhai Balwant Singh (in India). Incidentally the news was flashed in Rangoon Penang, Singapore, Hong Kong and Shanghai. The result was that everyone was ready to proceed to Canada.
After a ‘silence’ of the paper for six months, the editorials followed in quick succession, thereafter that is, 20th May, 29th May, 3rd June, 6th June, 10th June, 19th June, 5th July, 9th July, 11th July, and 23rd July 1914.
These editorials, inter alia updated the Indian readers about the press-comments in Canada, with its own sharp observations.
While the ship was on its return journey, in an editorial dated 10th September captioned “The Problem of Indian emigration”, the paper, however, appears to have been taken in by the Indian Governments’ version on the venture which “blamed the Komagata Maru enterprise and seemed to think that the persons who organised the journey.” Mercifully, the Indian Government had also shed some ‘synthetic’ tears as well for the Indian emigrants.
Post Budge Budge: In its editorial dated 7th October titled “Anglo-Indian papers and Komagata Maru passengers”, it takes exception to a few “violent remarks of some Anglo-Indian papers on the deplorable riot at Budge Budge”. …“We leave it to the Government to see that nothing is done to unjustly misrepresent persons who were probably mistaken and to whom unnaturally a novel and unusual restraint on their movement in their own country seemed in explicable.”
Apropos one of the said papers’ allegation that “among the returned emigrants were men who had imbibed anarchical ideas in America and Japan”, the paper repudiates any such suggestion by contending that how could persons like Gurdit Singh who “valued British citizenship and claimed a right of entry to British Colonies as equal subjects of His Majesty the King Emperor” be attributed any such attribute.”
Cumulatively viewed, these editorials can very well be taken simultaneously as a measure of public sympathy as also an effort to mobilise more public support for the cause of Indian emigrants.
Juxtaposed to the public-social support which Komagata Maru passengers evoked in sharp contrast to the Ghadrites a vital gap would be found in matter of press reports espousing the cause of the former and the total absence even of news coverage qua the latter.
In case of Ghadrites, there are a number of instances where ordinary village folk joined the police in chasing the Ghadrites fleeing after an ‘action’.
The indifference bordering on apathy had been well brought out by an eminent Ghadrite (Baba) Sajjan Singh (Narangwal-Ludhiana) a life-convict in Lahore Conspiracy Case — Supplementary, while describing his co prisoners’ group’s journey from Multan jail to Hazari Bagh (Then Bihar — Now Jharkhand).
“Since their movements were kept confidential, and they were denied the facility of postal — Communication with their relatives (permissible under Jail Rules) he looked forward to the arrival of their train at Ludhiana station, his home district too find someone to convey the news of his transfer to a God-forbidden locale.
“To his utter disappointment, no one was willing even to look towards them as to avoid an eye-contact. When he called someone too listen to him, he, instead, moved away.
“Later it dawned upon the Baba that it was due to the widespread canard spread by the loyalist lobby of ‘Sardar Bahadurs’ of Chief Khalsa Diwan who lectured in Gurdwaras and public platforms demonising then as dacoits and murders.”
It needs be pointed out that the Khalsa Advocate, the mouthpiece of Chief Khalsa Diwan, in its Editorial dated 18 September 1915 had welcomed the Special Tribunal Verdict of 13 September 1915 sentencing 24 of the 51 Ghadrites accused to death and strongly urged the Government not to entertain any plea of Mercy.
On top of it a holy edict of the revered Sikh Guru, Guru Gobind Singh was cited to support their contention.

References:

1. Malwinder Jit Singh Waraich, Harish Jain: Ghadr Movement Original Documents: Judgements, Vol. III, p. 28, published by Unistar Books Pvt. Ltd., SCO 26-27, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh -160022 (2012).

2. Ibid., p. 23.

3. Ibid., p. 28.

4. Ibid., p. 29.

5. Malwinder Jit Singh Waraich, Harinder Singh, Ghadr Movement Original Documents I: L.C.Cs. I and II — Individual Judgements, Vol. 1-B, p. 220, published by Unistar Books Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh (2014).

6. Ibid. pp. 98.

7. Ibid., p. 103.

8. Malwinder Jit Singh Waraich, Gurdev Singh Sindhu, Komagata Maru — A Challenge to Colonialism: Key Documents, p. 224, published by Unistar Books Pvt. Ltd., SCO 26-27, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh -160022 (2005).

9. Ibid., p. 67.

10. Ibid., p. 58.

11. Ibid., pp. 254-55.

12. Ibid., p. 50.

13. Ibid., p. 68.

14. Ibid., p. 95.

15. Ibid., p. 101.

16. Ibid., p. 125.

17. Ibid., p. 226.

18. Bhai Nahar Singh, M.A. and Kirpal Singh (Eds.): Struggle for Free Hindustan (Ghadr Movement), Vol. I. 1905-1916, p. 15, published by Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, B-2, Vishal Enclave, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi 110027.

19. Ibid., p. 15.

20. Ibid. p. 17.

21. Ibid., pp. 15-16.

22. Ibid. p. 16.

23. Ibid. p. 21.

24. Ibid., p. 53.

25. Ibid., p. 54-55.

26. The issues of The Tribune of the respective dates.

27. Malwinder Jit Singh Waraich and Sita Ram Bansal (Eds.): Atam Katha, Baba Sajjan Singh Narangwal, p. 33, published by Unistar Books Pvt. Ltd., SCO 26-27, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh -160022 (2011)

28. Malwinder Jit Singh Waraich & Gurdev Singh Sidhu: Komagata Maru: Not Just a Voyage, pp. 112-116, published by National Book Trust of India, New Delhi (2013); Original Micro Films: Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, Teen Murti, New Delhi.

-0-