"I Accuse I"

From the Suppressed Statement of
hcndra Nath Roy cm Trial
Treason Bel ore Sessions
Court, Cawnpore, India.

With an I

WANI KUMAR SHARMA

"/ Accuse"

From the Suppressed Statement of

Manabendra Nath Roy on Trial

for Treason Before Sessions

Court, Cawnpore, India*

With an Introdttttfon by

ASWANI KURMA SHARMA

lOtf

Published for tJie
ROY DEFENSE COMMITTEE OF INDIA

1

New York Office

228 SECOND AVENUE

1932

1

—

INTRODUCTION

The attention of the entire world has been centered
upon the historic trial of the internationally famous
Indian Communist, Manabendra Nath Roy, who stood
charged under Section 121 A, I.P.C. ("conspiracy lo
deprive the King of his sovereignty in India," in other
words, treason), before the imperialist court at Cawn-
pore (UP.).

For more than twenty years Roy's name has been
very closely associated with the revolutionary move-
ment all over the world. In early days, he was one
of the active leaders of the terrorist movement in
Bengal. Several times-,, he was arrested and charged
under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and
ever since the year 1908, bis existence became legally
impossible in this country. Just before the beginning
of the great World War, when he was arrested for
the last time, he managed to leave the Indian shores
and eventually reached America. He devoted much
of his time to an exhaustive study of the writings of
Karl Marx, Friedrich Engcls and other authorities on
social, political and economic sciences. Soon he was
recognized as one of the leading Marxists in those
days.

While in America, Roy was arrested in connection
with his political activities. Here too He managed to
escape, when released on bail. Not long afterwards
he was found in Mexico which was at that time In the
throes of national revolution. Roy actively helped
the Mexican movement, organized a Communist party
and was its secretary. Moreover* he visited the Phil-
ippines, Dutch Indies, Java, Sumatra, China, etc., where
he actively participated in the revolutionary movement
and tried to organize Communist parties.

Just after the war, Roy decided to leave for Europe,
He arrived at Berlin just two days before the outbreak
of the German revolution. Later on he left for Moscow
where he met Lenin. Roy became one of the trusted

[3]

friends and comrades of Lenin and helped him to lay
down the foundation of the Communist International.
Roy was elected to the bench of the presidents of the
Communist International (presidium) and was for nine
years a member of its highest executive, the Political
Buro. He was even elected to the executive of the
Moscow Soviet.

Ever since 1920, Roy carried on an intensive propa-
ganda in favor of India's right to self-determination
and for the Overthrow of the imperialist domination.
He devoted much of his energy to the organization
of the revolutionary party of the Indian working class
(the Communist party) and has been able to lay down
its ideological foundation. With this aim in view, he
wrote a large number of articles as well as books and
pamphlets, important amongst them being: "One Year
of Non-Cooperation," "Aftermath of Non-Cooperation,"
"India In Transition," "India's Problems and Solu-
tions," "Political Letter," "What Do We Want?" and
"Future of Indian Politics." In these books and
pamphlets, Roy heralds the birth of a new class (the
working class) and lays down the basic principles and
program of the national democratic revolution which
the world is to witness in the near future.

To a large extent as a result of his relentless pro-
paganda and unceasing agitation, the revolutionary
working class movement as well as the struggle of the
Indian masses was rapidly developing. The imperialist
government was alarmed. Obtaining the collaboration
of the police of other capitalist countries, the British
government got Roy expelled from France, Germany,
Sweden, Italy, Holland, Switzerland, etc., thus violating
the very international law of the bourgeois democratic
world. In order to help the execution of the warrant
issued by a magistrate in India, the first Labor Gov-
ernment (under the premiership of MacDonald) went
to the extent of persuading the French police to hand
over Roy to the agents of the Scotland Yard. But
the plan miscarried. Having been expelled from one
country after the other, Roy could not legally stay
in any country of the world except Russia. In spite
of the brutal suppression of the trade union as well as
national revolutionary movement by the government,

[4]

the followers of Roy in India, with courage and deter-
mination, carried on agitation and propaganda in favor
of complete national independence of the Indian people
and organized a large number of trade unions and peas-
ants organizations. During the years 1926-1928, strikes
broke out all over the country and the workmen began
to join their respective class organizations in large
numbers. The imperialist government took serious
note of the situation and arrested, once again in the
middle of 1929, a large number of trade union workers
and anti-imperialist lighters and charged them under
Section 121 A ("waging war against the King"). This
"Meerut conspiracy" case has lasted over two years.
Roy is a principal figure and has been described by
the trying court at Meerut as the "source of all
trouble."

During the years 1926-27, the attention of the entire
world was focused on the events in China. The revolt
and heroic struggle of the Chinese coolies against the
latest engines of destruction and warfare had chal-
lenged the very existence of imperialism. At this
critical juncture of China's history, Roy's services
were demanded. Towards the close of the year 1926,
Roy, as the sole delegate and representative of the
C.I., left for China. By the time he arrived at Can-
ton, the situation was changed. Counter-revolution
was raising its head. Roy tried his best, with the help
and cooperation of Russian and Chinese Communists
(among them being the organizer of the Chinese na-
tional revolutionary army, Galen), to avert the com-
ing catastrophe. But in vain! China was plunged into
a bloody counter-revolution. More than 35,000 Chi-
nese Communists, workers and peasants, were merci-
lessly murdered at the order of the "Nationalist" gen-
erals like Chiang Kai-shek and, on the blood of the
poverty-striken and downtrodden Chinese masses, the
present monument of the "Nationalist" government at
Nanking has been raised.

Roy's rich experiences before and during the years
1926 and 1927 in China are now published in the form
of a large volume "Revolution and Counter-Revolution
in China," printed in German and received in America
and Europe as the outstanding contribution towards

[5]

the proper understanding of the Chinese situation.

Soon serious differences arose in the Communist In-
ternational on a large number of important questions.
The Indian Communists were called upon by the Com-
munist International to fight for the dictatorship of
the proletariat and the establishment of the Soviets
while Roy maintained that the Indian Communists *
should prepare the masses for national liberation, which
would pave the way for the establishment of a socialist
society- The majority of the Indian Communists, as^
realists and present on the spot, supported Roy's point
of view and until today they are working on the same
line. As a result of the strong criticism of the official
Communist point of view on all questions of strategy
and tactics, a large number of Communists all over
the world were expelled and there exist Communist
parties and groups in opposition to the new line of
the C.I. Mtoreover, there exists an international body
under whose banner all the oppositional Communist
organizations are mobilized and from the numerous
writings of the outstanding leaders of the Communist
Opposition, like Roy, Thalheimer, Brandler and Love-
stone, it is very clear that the International Commu-
nist Opposition is working for the correction of the
mistakes committed by the present leadership of the
C.L, for the defense of Soviet Russia and for building
up and strengthening of the Communist International.

In the year of 1930, Roy issued his famous Manifesto
which urged upon the members of the revolutionary
trade union movement in India to organize and pre-
pare the oppressed and exploited masses of India for
a revolutionary fight against British imperialism and
for the assertion of their right to self-determination.
It further called upon these elements to organize the
much needed revolutionary party of the Indian working
class (the Communist party) and to carry on a re-
lentless agitation for the election of the National Con-
stituent Assembly as the only sovereign authority of
the oppressed and exploited classes. Ever since the
publication of this Manifesto, the trade union move-
ment, which had been totally ruined and crushed dur-
ing the year 1929-30, was once more revived. Roy's
followers in India worked with double vigor and

[6]

energy and the program and principles of the national
democratic revolution, as advocated by Roy, were en-
dorsed by a large number of organizations of the op-
pressed and exploited masses, and attempts in the
direction of building up the much needed political
party of the Indian proletariat continued.

Once again the mighty imperialism was alarmed.
The thin upper stratum of the Indian people too was
bewildered. Acting on the rumor that Roy had arrived
in India, the Indian police out of nervousness arrested
a number of persons at Bombay, Calcutta, Benares,
Lucknow, Faizabad, etc., suspecting all of them of
being M, N. Roy. For a time, Roy was like a ghost
hovering over the Indian police.

It was to organize and participate in the movement
for national liberation of the Indian people that Roy
took the great risk in coming to India, It was on
June 21, 1931 that Roy was arrested in Bombay on a
warrant issued seven years ago in connection with
the "Bolshevik conspiracy" case of 1924. Early in
the morning in the neighborhood of the working class
area, the Bombay police raided a house in which he
was staying. All the police officers rushed into the
room with pistol in hand to arrest an unarmed sleeping
man. He was detained in custody for more than eleven
days, during which a large number of arrests were
made all over the country on the charge of harboring
Roy. Innumerable houses were raided and a large
number of persons were harassed during those nervous
ten days. Amongst those arrested on the charge of
harboring Roy were officials of the AlMndia Con-
gress, trade union officials, members of the execu-
tive committee of the Bombay Nawjuwan-Bharat-Sabha
and a Swiss lady, Mrs. Geissler.

While in police custody, Roy was not allowed to see
any one nor communicate with any one outside. Even
his lawyers were not allowed to see him. The working
class and the nationalist rank and file were not slow
to protest against Roy's arrest. Mass meetings, huge
demonstrations, were the order of the day. Thousands
of people demonstrated before the police station where
Roy was detained. Thereupon Roy was secretly re-
moved by the police up to Cawnpore where the case

[7]

of 1924 was tried. The movement of protest and for
Roy's unconditional release led by the Trade Union
Congress and other allied bodies, Nawjuwan-Bharat-
Sabha and the Youth League, spread thruout the coun-
try and defense committees were formed in almost
every town and city in India. This even spread be-
yond seas and thruout Europe, America and other
countries, demonstrations and meetings were organized.
To put it shortly in the words of Eduard Fuchs, the
world famous German historian, "the arrest of Roy
and the campaign for his unconditional release brought
the Indian question more prominently and clearly be-
fore the entire world than before." At Hamburg
more than twenty thousand workers demanded Roy's
release by addressing an open letter to the British
consulate. The demand for Roy's release was devel-
oping with momentum all over the world. The world
famous scientist, Professor Albert Einstein, cabled to
the Round Table Conference in London and demanded
of the British government that Roy should be set free.

But imperialism had no regard for world opinion.
Roy was placed before the magistrate on August 1,
1931. Here, too, Roy was not allowed to sec any one
or communicate with any lawyer. He applied to the
magistrate for trial. He argued the application himself
in the open court which was surrounded by strong
armed police guards to keep away people assembled
to greet the prisoner of the British Raj. Seeing the
popular feeling in favor of Roy, the magistrate got
nervous and transferred the court to jail. Roy's tele-
grams and letters to Ramsay MacDonald, the Lord
Chancellor, Fenner Brockway, James Maxton, Lans-
bury, all members of the British Parliament, were
withheld. He was not permitted to write letters to
the president of the National Congress and to the
leader of the opposition in the Assembly. All inter-
views, even by the secretary of the defense committee,
were not allowed by the government. Pandit Jawaharlal
Nehru was not allowed an interview with Roy. More-
over, he was placed in a damp and dirty cell under
iron blockade and Indian newspapers and books (which
came from America) were not allowed. All these
unprecedented restrictions were placed upon a prisoner

[8]

under trial on the plea that the government was con-
vinced that Roy "wanted to use his trial for seditious
and revolutionary propaganda." On this specious pre-
text even representatives of the nationalist dailies were
refused admission to the court and only a represen-
tative of the semi-official agency, the A.P., was ad-
mitted. A strong censorship was kept on the news
about the treatment of Roy in prison and on important
declarations and pronouncements of the accused, thus
preventing them from getting abroad.

Mass demonstrations, public meetings and trade
union organizations, along with radical nationalist and
working class leaders like Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
and R» S. Ruiker (president of the T.U.C.) protested
against the barbarous treatment meted out to Roy and
demanded public agitation against such a medieval
policy of a government pretending to be civilized and
modern. But the imperialist rulers of our country have
practically no regard for public opinion. The magis-
trate (as ordered by superior authority) did not allow
Roy to make a statement and merely committed him
to sessions court for trial. The magistrate declared
frankly: "I will not allow the accused (Roy) to make
seditious propaganda,"

The trial in the Court of Sessions began on Novem-
ber 3, 193L Roy refused to appear before a court
sitting behind the prison walls. But by order of the
imperialist judge, he was brought to the court by force.
In this barbarous and most medieval fashion the trial
went on. The judge (again as ordered) declared that
he would not allow Roy to make any statement. (In
all the political cases the accused is asked to make a
statement and Roy was privileged to do so.) No
defense witnesses were allowed nor was the defense
allowed to argue the case.

The mighty imperialist rulers of India were nervous.
They were too anxious to close the prison gates on
Roy, so that they would be secure and sitting tight in
the saddle of the established order. With the approach
of the new year Roy's fate was to be decided. On
January 9, 1932, the imperialist court awarded him the
most inhuman and brutal sentence of twelve years
transportation.

M

Roy, dressed like a convict and fettered heavily, was
secretly removed from Cawnpore jail to Berilly Cen-
tral jail by a well guarded armed police van. At pres-
ent he is languishing in the District Jail at Berilly
(U.P.), carefully segregated from all political pris-
oners, kept in solitary confinement in a small, dirty
cell and deprived of all facilities ordinarily granted to
political prisoners.

The readers of the following pages of Roy's masterly
statement which was not allowed in the sessions court,
will find that the defense of Roy is not his personal
defense but that of the right of the Indian people to
self-determination and national freedom. Basic con-
stitutional issues affecting the people of this country
are raised in the course of this statement. In the
history of the entire colonial peoples, no one has yet
put such a courageous and bold defense, completely
disregarding one's individual self.

Altho Roy is confined today behind the four walls
of the prison, the seeds that he has sown will grow as
the harbinger of the coming social order, overthrowing
the imperialist domination over India, freeing her from
colonial slavery. The supreme tribunal of the Indian
masses, for whose prosperity and progress Roy has
worked relentlessly for more than twenty years, will
vindicate him, will liberate him from the imperialist
prison and will hail him as the father of modern and
free India, which is in the process of making.

January, 1932,

ASWANI KUMAR SHARMA

[10]

MY DEFENSE

"The statement which I was not allowed to make in
the Sessions Court, Cawnpore U, P."

M. N. ROY

As I have been able to gather, the sum and substance
of the evidence against me is: 1- That I have advo-
cated the right of the Indian people to be free of the
present foreign domination; 2. that I have tried to
organize a political party with the object of asserting
this right; 3, that I have held that India cannot be
really free unless separated from the British Empire;

4. that I have advocated the application of force as the
means for attaining the goal of national freedom; and,

5. that in all this I have acted as the agent of the Com-
munist International.

The crux of the prosecution case is that force and
violence are advocated in the documents which are
alleged to be written by me. But force is force. The
moral philosophy of the ruling power is that force be-
comes criminal when directed against it but that it is
an instrument of virtue when employed for the preserva-
tion of the ruling power. In other words the mer-
cenary army with which the sovereignty of the British
is maintained in a foreign country is an instrument of
moral, or virtuous, force. The rifles employed in
putting down the pauperized peasants of Malabar or
Burma are the arms of God. But the same weapons in
the hands of the oppressed people of India fighting for
freedom are instruments of crime. Airplanes bombing
the Frontier tribesmen are vehicles of virtue, teaching
those depraved people a moral lesson, but any resist-
ance on the part of the latter is "criminal."

The oppressed people and exploited classes are not
obliged to respect the moral philosophy of the ruling
power. The sovereign right of the Indian people is
usurped by foreign power and as the foreign usurpers

[11]

maintain themselves in power by force, the Indian
people are obliged to use force to recover their sov-
ereign right. A despotic power is always overthrown
by force. The force employed in this process is not
criminal. On the contrary, precisely the guns carried
by the army of the British government of India are
instruments of crime. They become instruments of
virtue when they are turned against the imperialist
state. Weapons in the hands of the oppressed masses
of India will be so many hammers to break the chain
of a colonial slavery binding one-fifth of the human
race.

I am justified in holding this view on the authority
of the great English philosophers. Bentham is of the
opinion that: "Despotism is veiled under some happy
and ingenious phrases as the great power of our ethical
system bears witness/' Such "happy and ingenious
phrases" are used by the British government of India
to justify its despotism — "rule of law," "the public
security," etc.

Hume is of the opinion that: "In case of enormous
tyranny and oppression it is lawful to take arms even
against the supreme power and that, as government
is a pure human invention for mutual advantage and
security, it no longer imposes any obligation either
moral or natural when once it ceases to have that
tendency."

I hold that the British government of India has been
an "enormous tyranny and oppression" for the Indian
masses and that it has never been of any advantage
for them. So, according to Hume, the national philoso-
pher of England, the people of India are fully justified
to take up arms against the present government. In
doing so they will not be employing "criminal force";
on the contrary, the force is moral and virtuous only
when employed for the conquest and defense of free-
dom.

* * *

BRITISH RULE A USURPATION

By their very nature, cases like this in which I am
involved represent so many attempts to suppress the
strivings of the Indian people for freedom. By what

X12]

principle of legislation and government are these at-
tacks upon the popular will raised to the dignity of
the administration of justice? Has the present gov-
ernment of India any constitutional basis? Was the
law under which the people are being persecuted made
with popular consent? How did the British King
acquire his sovereignty in India? When did the Indian
people swear allegiance to the British Crown?

I maintain that the people of India owe no allegiance
to the British Crown t Therefore the law under which
1 am charged has no force of law in the modern civil-
ized sense of the term. Indians are forced to obey it
altlio they have had nothing to say about its promulga-
tion. The British government of India holds no power
of attorney from the Indian people. It is an instru-
ment of predatory imperialism foisted upon this coun-
try by violence. There can be no progress, prosperity
and liberty for the Indian people until this foreign
domination is overthrown. The charge against me is
absurd. This trial is a form of violence.

The charge against me hinges on the assumption
that the British King has sovereign right over the
Indian people. The substance of the offense I am
alleged to have committed is to dispute this assump-
tion. If I can show that the assumption is groundless,
that the British King has no constitutional position in
India, the absurdity of the charge against me will be
palpable, the invalidity a»d the worthlessness of the
law under which the charge is made will be proved.
Searching the entire history of India's unfortunate
relation with Britain, one does not find the least evi-
dence to establish the assumption.

The British Crown acquired its domination over
India in a rather singular way. It was not even by
conquest that the valuable acquisition was made. It
was more like quiet appropriation of stolen or robbed
property in return for the help given to the robbers
in their depredation. For a hundred years the British
East India Company held political power in India,
nominally as a vassal of the Moghul Emperor, At the
same time the East India Company owed its existence
to charters granted by the British Crown thru the
Parliament. Towards the end of its existence, the

[13]

Company practically ceased to be a trading corporation
and became a department of the British government;
that is, thru the instrumentality of trading company,
actual political power passed gradually from the titular
Moghul Emperor to the British Crown. The people
of India had nothing to say about the transfer of the
power to rule them, nor was the power transferred
voluntarily by the Moghul Emperor. All along, the
East India Company, as the administrator of India,
theoretically derived its authority from its vassalage
to the Moghul Emperors, while on the other hand
it was accountable not to them but to the British Par-
liament So, there were two supreme authorities: one
theoretical and the other practical. This dualism typi-
fied the entire history of the administration of India
by the British East India Company.

In the middle of the nineteenth century, according
to its own law officers, the British Crown had no con-
stitutional authority over India and therefore could
not claim from the Indians any allegiance. The fact
remains that the Indian people never swore allegiance
to the British Crown. The Queen's proclamation did
not have as its counterpart a reciprocal proclamation
on the part of the Indian people. When James II was
deposed from the throne of England and his place
occupied by a Dutch prince, the change took place on
the initiative and authority of the British Parliament.
An act of the British Parliament made a foreign prince
the King of England. The Queen of England was not
made the Empress of India by any such authority of
the Indian people.

Even the theory of acquiescence cannot be advanced
in support of the constitutionality of the position of
the British Crown in India. What might appear as
acquiescence on the part of the Indian people is silence
imposed by fear.

In his principles of legislation, Bentham completely
explodes the theory of acquiescence as the basis for
constitutional authority. He writes: "Can a few vague
acclamations really be accounted an act of individual
and universal concern? Can such a contract really bind
the multitude of individuals who never heard of it,
who were never summoned to ratify it, and, above all,

[14]

who could not have refused assent without risking
their lives and estates?" So, in the opinion of the
father of modern English principles of government
and legislation, the demonstrative loyalty of the para-
sitic upper classes of India does not lend constitu-
tionality to the British domination.

The only justification of the British rule over India
is that it has been a successful act of usurpation.
In denouncing the tyrants of ancient Greece, Plato
argued that "usurpation is not justified by success."
Other Greek philosophers, Aristotle, Xenophon, etc.,
those spiritual powers of modern European civilization,
all held similar views. Discounting the time factor and
the resulting change of conditions, the British conquest
of India was very, similar to the rise of the despotic
monarchy on the ruins of the city republics of Greece.
In both cases, the aggressors took advantage of
troubled conditions to establish their despotic sway.
According to Grote, the English author of the splendid
History of Greece, the philosophers and law-givers of
that cradle of modern civilization regarded "the despot
as among the greatest criminals; the man who assas-
sinated him was an object of public honor and reward
and a virtuous Greek would have seldom scrupled to
carry his sword in myrtle branches for the execution
of the despot."

* * *

THE SACRED RIGHT OF REVOLUTION

Drinking deep in the fountain of the teachings of the
ancient Greek philosophers that it was no crime bui
honor to destroy a despot, the founders of the modern
democratic states of Europe passionately preached the
sacred right of revolt. The English philosophers, John
Locke and David Hume, were among the illustrious
pioneers who preached the sacred right of revolt. It
was in England that the right was first asserted. A
king was beheaded and another deposed in the process
of that great revolution in England. I am accused
of having advocated the freedom of Indian people thru
a revolution. But we read in the work of Lord John
Russell, The British Constitution, the following sen-

[15]

tence; "The revolution of 1688 is the mighty stock
from which all other revolutions had sprung,"

Demanding the trial and execution of Charles I, Lud-
low exclaimed: "The war has been occasioned by in-
vasion of our right and open breach of our law and
constitution on the King's part/' Charged as I am, any
Indian would be justified to retort in these memorable
words of Ludlow, which constitute a very important
landmark in the history of England.

If the English people were justified in beheading a
king and deposing another to assert their sovereign
right, by no law can the Indian people be deprived of
the right to overthrow the domination of a foreign
king. To subject Indian people to laws not given with
their consent is usurpation of powers by those hiding
behind the unconstitutional legislature. The usurp-
ers of political power cannot claim the protection of
law any more than a robber or a thief can. I chal-
lenge the legality of the British government of India
and the pretension of the British King to any sovereign
right in this country on the authority of Bcntham. He
wrote: "Not even the age of a Nestor could suffice to
secure a usurper in the wages and spoils of his lawless
seizure. Why should there ever come a time when the
wrongdoer shall be at rest; why should he enjoy the
fruits of his crime under protection of the very law he
has violated?"

The charter of slavery is no law for the slave. When
all the avenues of normal and peaceful progress are
blocked by the established order of things, its violent
overthrow becomes a necessity for human welfare.
We learn again from the English jurist and moralist,
Bentham, that "to condemn all change is to condemn all
progress."

The despotic fundamental law of the Indian const!-
tution limits the perspective of Indian political progress
to "self-government within the British Empire." Those
who are not satisfied with this limited perspective auto-
matically come under the sweeping jurisdiction of Sec-
tion 121A of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, com-
plete independence of the Indian people inevitably be-
comes conditional upon the overthrow of the sovereign
power assumed illegally by the British Crown. As

[16]

i

the British, on their part, are not likely to abdicate
their ill-gotten and unconstitutional power in India, the
Indian masses are obliged to get rid of them by force,
unless they are prepared to remain enslaved forever.
Therefore, the "separation of India from imperialist
Britain thru a violent revolution" is an obvious neces-
sity in the interest of the masses of the Indian people.
It is not my personal desire; I have no personal grudge
against the British King. Let Britain cease to be an
imperialist power exploiting the masses of the Indian
people to helpless pauperization and the necessity of a
violent clash between her and the Indian people will
disappear. Let there be no violent oppression and ex-
ploitation of the Indian masses and there will be no
occasion for a violent revolution. Otherwise, all the
repressive laws, all the ruthless force in their admin-
istration, all the instruments of imperialist terror, will
not be able to retard the march of human progress.
In 1797, commenting on the situation in Ireland, Lord
Chatham wrote: "There was ambition, there was sedi-
tion, there was violence; but no man shall persuade
me that it was not the cause of liberty on the one side
and tyranny on the other."

These words characterize the situation in India today.
We hear men like Mr. V. J. Patel, the ex-president of
the Legislative Assembly, sounding the alarm. Speaking
in London the other day, he said cautiously: "I am con-
vinced that India is heading towards a revolution and
if the government does not concede the Congress de-
mands I do not know what will happen to it. I know
that today between revolution and India stands Gandhi
and the government must concede India's demand for
freedom.'*

But the demand for the freedom of the Indian people
cannot be conceded by the British government, because
this demand, if seriously meant, challenges the very
existence of the British government in India. As a
matter of fact, the law under which I am charged makes
such a demand punishable. Complete independence of
India means her secession from the British Empire,
which inevitably implies the overthrow of the British
King's sovereignty in India. Had the Lahore resolu-
tion of the National Congress not been hedged in b.

[17]

the old creed, it might be legally construed as an
offense against the slate punishable under section 121 A
I.P.C. Even the old phrases would not save the Con-
gress should the government decide to proceed against
it for declaring in favor of complete independence. The
unwritten law of the constitution of India under Brit-
ish rule binds her perpetually to the Empire. A decla-
ration in favor of complete independence, which means
separation from the Empire if it means anything, com-
mits the organization making such a declaration logical-
ly to "unconstitutional," "illegal" and "violent" action.
Thus the organization comes under the cruel jurisdic-
tion of Section 121A, I.P.C, "conspiracy to deprive the
King of his sovereignty of India."

The only law for the oppressed and exploited people
of India is the law of revolt— the majestic law of revo-
lutionary struggle for freedom. The imperialist rulers
of India violate every day the only law that the people
of India can observe under the present conditions. My
arrest and trial represent an instance of such violation
of our law. To accuse me of any offense is to add
insult to injury, I stand here not to answer any such
absurd charge and insolent accusation, I stand here to
indict the British government of India at the bar of
the civilized world for wanton aggression against one-
fifth of the human race, for robbing our land, for ob-
structing our progress in every sense.

* * *

CONSEQUENCES OF BRITISH RULE

The English philosopher, David Hume, who greatly
influenced modern political thought thruout Europe,
testifies to the legality of my indictment against the
British government of India. I have already quoted
his opinion to that effect. He held that the people
were justified in overthrowing a government when it
had ceased to perform the function of guarding the
welfare of the community- India has not derived any
benefits from the British government. The latter was
never established with any such purpose. It was not
set up by the people of India to advance mutual inter-
ests. On the contrary, it was established with the

[18]

purpose of oppressing and exploiting the people of
India. It has mercilessly done so for nearly two hun-
dred years. Consequently, the Indian masses today are
sunk in the lowest depth of economic ruin and cultural
backwardness.

The disastrous consequences of the British rule are
depicted in many a document exhibited in this case as
evidence of my guilt. These very documents (I refer
particularly to Chapters II and V of my book, "India
in Transition," Exhibit B) prove my case that the
present regime is exceedingly harmful for the masses
of the Indian people and therefore must be overthrown
in their interests. In support of my case, I shall pro-
duce the testimony of an English authority on Indian
economic affairs. Mr. Findlay Shiraz, in his latest
publication, "Certain Economic Facts in regard to
India," estimates the annual per capita income of India
at about forty American dollars (that is, slightly over
Rs. 100). In his opinion it is the lowest figure of all
the civilized countries, being one-twelfth of that in
the U- S, A. According to the report of the Depart-
ment of Commercial Intelligence, the purchasing powei
of the Indian peasants, that is, of 73% of the entire
population, declined 50% last year. According to other
English authorities, the total indebtedness of the Indian
peasantry is Rs. 700-1,000 Crores. According to the re-
port of the Whitley Commission, the wages in India
are lower than in any other modern industrial country
and the condition of labor is incredibly bad. Nearly
forty-six millions of people are perpetually unemployed
in India. Still the Royal Commission of Labor recom-
mends a 10-hour working day, while in all other civil-
ized countries the 8-hour day has been introduced long
since and the workers now are demanding its reduction
to seven and six hours. In one country, in the Soviet
Union, in the land of "bloody" Bolshevism, the attempt
to introduce which in this country is my crime, people
work seven hours a day for five days a week.

In contrast to these facts, I shall quote another set
of facts also given by Mr. Findlay Shiraz. They relate
to the military expenditure of a number of countries.
The facts cited above show that the masses of the
Indian population are incredibly poor. Yet no less

[19]

than 45% o£ the revenue, paid mostly by the Indian
pauperized masses, is appropriated for the military
budget over which the Legislature has no control. The
expenditure on the same item in the budget of some
countries much richer than India is as follows: Britain
12.8%, U. S. A. 16.4%, Austria 4.5 %, Canada 2.4%,
while the most militarized country of the present day,
France, spends only 22% of the budget on this item.

One more fact to give the finishing touch to the pic-
ture. We have heard various theories about the British
administration of the Indian trusteeship, the "white
man's burden," the "civilizing mission," "protecting the
minorities against the caste Hindus," etc. It is even
made to appear that the British have no material in-
terest in ruling India. The fact of the matter is, how-
ever, that from India, Britain derives a net income of
about 260 Crores a year.

These few facts clearly prove that the British gov-
ernment of India does not perform the function of a
modern civilized government. Its concern is not the
welfare of the governed. It is an instrument in the
hands of foreign exploiters of the country. Again I
shall rely upon the testimony of the famous English
jurist and political philosopher, Bentham, to establish
my contention.

According to Bentham, the function of a government
and law is "to provide subsistence, to supply abundance,
to encourage equality and to maintain security."

The British government of India cannot claim to
have performed any of these functions except the last.
It has established order in the country but the main-
tenance of order has been a plausible pretext to sup-
press all expression of the popular will. "Law and
order" have become chains of slavery for the people.
And the Indian masses have paid very heavily for this
lesson. Poverty and pauperization of the masses have
been their dear price, Let alone abundance, the great
majority of the people are not provided with the barest
subsistence by the British government, which is guided
by the cardinal principle of English liberalism: "Great-
est good for the greatest number." Its object has
been to secure the greatest gain of the foreign ex-
ploiters.

[20]

I have already cited the opinion of Hume that it is
no crime to take arms against such an oppressive and
tyrannical government as the British administration of
India has proved to be. Now I shall quote the same
authority holding that his verdict, cited already, is
applicable even when a government is established con-
stitutionally. He writes;

"It is certain that the people still (that is, even after
the establishment of constitutional government) retain
the right of resistance since even in these governments
(Hume is dealing with constitutional monarchies) the
cases wherein resistance is lawful must occur often
and greater indulgence must be given to the subjects
to defend themselves by force of arms,"

What would the national philosopher of England
say about trials like this and the law under which trials
take place? On the authority of Hume, the Indian
people have lawful right to rise up in arms against the
British government of India, even if its claim to legal-
ity were granted. From this it follows that, even
after India has been granted eventually some fraudu-
lent constitution by the British Parliament, the op-
pressed and exploited masses will still have the right
to resist it with arms.

The right of the people to revolt against and over-
throw any government is conclusively established by
Hume in the following words: "It is gross absurdity to
suppress in any government the right of resistance or
declare that the supreme power is shared with the
people without allowing that it is lawful for them to
defend their share against invaders. Therefore, those
who would deny the right of resistance have denounced
all pretensions to common sense and do not merit a
serious answer."

Thus, according to Hume, the authors and the admin,
istrators of the law under which I am prosecuted are
devoid of common sense. This law is absurd, and the
regime based upon such laws is lawless. The right of
the Indian people to resist the established government
with armed force if necessary can be contested only by
denying the very basic principles of modern political
philosophy that the supreme power is shared with the
people. The British government of India does not

[21]

recognize this principle. That means it is pure des-
potism, and, therefore, it is all the more lawful for the
Indian people to overthrow it by every available means.
The attempt to overthrow the despotic rule of our
own country by the foreign usurpers of power is no
offense. It is an act for the assertion of popular liberty.
Once again I cite Hume to testify in my favor. He

*™When the chief magistrate (that is, the head of a
government or government as a whole) enters into
measures extremely pernicious to the public . . . it II
allowable to resist and dethrone him tho such resist-
ance and violence may, in general terms of law, be
deemed unlawful and rebellions. Nothing is more es-
sential to public interests than the preservation ot
public liberty."

The laws on the Indian statute book penalizing of-
fenses against the state and the executive ordinances
issued frequently on the specious plea of pubhc safety,
are measures extremely pernicious to the public liberty
because their sole object is to crush public liberty and
defend the despotic regime. Indeed, every single ad-
ministrative act of the government of India is such an
extremely pernicious measure as to warrant its over-
throw. For it does not rule with the consent of the
people, by laws made by their representatives. Lven
at this very moment, such measures are being taken.
The new press law, for example, also justifies resist-
ance to the extent of armed insurrection. In these
enlightened days of the twentieth century, such an at-
tack upon the press is intolerable. Then, there is the
ruinous exchange policy maintained in the teeth of the
unanimous opposition of the elected members of the
Legislature. Finally, there is the certification of the
budget imposing upon the starving masses new bur-
dens of taxation.

In England, revolutions have taken place on any one
of similar issues. But in India, the government, set up
by the British conqueror, rules with such measures.
Still it claims to be established by law, and ruthlessly
suppresses all opposition to its despotic sway.

It is a well known lesson of history that revolutions
are inherent in the process of political progress, that

[22]

armed resistance to absolute monarchy and other forms
of despotic government is the only way to the estab-
lishment of a constitutional state. Indians are not
bound to obey the so-called laws which would prohibit
them from travelling the path of political progress
travelled by all other civilized peoples.

I am prosecuted because I have tried to help the
Indian people learn from the lessons of history. In
pointing out the inevitability of an armed revolution,
I have only told an historical truth.

The organization of the nobles who forced King
John to sign the Magna Carta is glorified as the
founder of the glorious British Constitution. But our
efforts in India to organize a party of the workers and
peasants with the object of securing national freedom
are punishable as "conspiracy" to deprive the British
King of his non-existent sovereignty of India.

The illiteracy of the Indian masses is pointed to by
our foreign rulers as the sign of India's unripeness for
political freedom. But the appalling mass illiteracy in
India is a damaging commentary upon her civilized
rulers and is a cogent reason for their overthrow from
power. However, the point I want to make here. is
that illiteracy did not prevent the founders of British
Constitution from accomplishing their historic mission.
The illustrious victors of Runnymede put their cross-
marks on the Great Charter. They could not write
their names. Inability to wield the pen did not hinder
them from demanding and conquering political free-
dom, as long as they could wield the sword. Force
is the lever of all progress. It is the foundation of
political freedom. Therefore, it is perfectly lawful for
the oppressed and exploited masses of India to use
force to resist and to overthrow their foreign rulers.

There are but two alternatives before the Indian peo-
ple: perpetual colonial slavery, which may eventually
be somewhat gilded, or forcible overthrow of the for-
eign domination. I recommend the latter course which
will surely be followed by the oppressed and exploited
majority of the Indian people who bear the burden of

colonial exploitation.

* * *

[23]

INDIA MUST WORK OUT ITS OWN DESTINY!

The Indians have no reason to idealize the British
idea of citizenship. They claim to do their own think-
ing and have their own conception of freedom. There
is no reason why the Indians should evolve a political
constitution on the British model. In England itself
her unwritten constitution has become obsolete. Even
there forces are in operation to overthrow the pluto-
cratic dictatorship hidden behind the veil of parliamen-
tarism. A critical examination of the British constitu-
tion does not inspire the Indians to idealize it. The
British constitution is a bundle of anomalies and con-
tradictions, veiling a modern plutocratic state with
medieval monarchist formalities.

Indians are asked to idealize this constitution of plu-
tocratic dictatorship hidden behind the sham of par-
liamentary democracy and the ugly ghost of medieval
monarchy.

I represent those Indians who refuse this honor with
thanks. Excepting those few whose fate is bound up
with foreign imperialism, who are benefited by the
colonial exploitation of the Indian masses, who have
sold their national pride for a mess of pottage, the
Indians want to work out their own destiny. They
will give their country a political system better than
the musty British constitution. They will not be sat-
isfied with a puppet parliament at Delhi eventually set
up by the dispensation of the sham parliament at
Westminster. Nor will they recognize the sovereignty
of the British Crown even if some day it will be exer-
cised thru an Indian Viceroy. We will make our con-
stitution not at any Round-Table Conference in Lon-
don but here in India in the midst of the struggle for
the assertion of our right to self-determination. The
British Crown presumes to deprive us of this inalien-
able right. So, the way to the establishment of a con-
stitutional regime in India lies unavoidably thru a
revolutionary war against the British King who has
usurped power in India. We are not making the war.
It is levied against the Indian people by the British
King. The Indians must fight in self-defense. If the
Indian people are to have democratic freedom and un-

[24]

restricted progress in all branches of their national life,
they must travel the road of revolution just as it has
been done by all the peoples who stand at the van of
modern civilization.

The essence of the charge against me is that I have
tried to organize a violent revolution for the overthrow
of the British Government of India. The issue in-
volved in trials like this is the right of the oppressed
people to revolt against and overthrow the imperialist
slate. The British King is but the emblem of imperial-
ism which oppresses and exploits the Indian people.
The theory of conspiracy is but a legal pretext. This
trial is an expression of the conflict between popular
will and the established law. The conflict must end in
a violent clash, unless the established law is changed
according to the will of the people. But laws of main-
tenance of a given state are in their turn defended by
the coercive machinery, namely the police, the court?
and finally the army. The process of political ela-
tion is inevitably subject to periodical violent outbreak,
because of the resistance of the established order.

"Revolutions," says the historian Gardner, "no less
than smaller political changes, are to be accounted for
as steps in the historical development of nations. They
are more violent and of longer duration in proportion
to the stubborn resistance offered to them by the insti-
tutions which Stand in their way."

The point of departure of all my propaganda and
action is that foreign domination hinders the progress
of the Indian people in every branch of life; therefore
it must be destroyed. Whether the necessary separa-
tion should be by violent or non-violent means does
not depend upon the people wanting to be free. It
depends upon the one that holds the other in subjuga-
tion. Let the British gracefully withdraw from our
country then there would be no need for using violent
means for securing its separation from imperialist
Britain. The people of India are obliged to employ
violence in their struggle for national freedom and
political and social progress, because British imperial-
ism does not let them be free and advance peacefully
In more than one document exhibited here, I have
made it clear that we are not in favor of violence by

[25]

choice, that the Indian people must adopt violent means
by necessity unless they would remain in perpetual
colonial slavery.

I have proved that revolutions are periodical violent
outbreaks inherent in the process of evolution in the
sphere of social existence. So, it is but a logical state-
ment that revolutionaries cannot believe in non-vio-
lence as a principle. The basic principle-^ the party
of the working class is the economic emancipation of
the toiling masses. The parasitic possessing classes
cannot exist and thrive except upon the product of
labor of the producing classes, that is, pxr.ept hy ex-
propriating the producers. Should the producing mass-
es want to have the full value of their labor, they are
sure to run up against the resistance of the parasitic
possessing classes. They are entrenched behind laws,
protecting their interests thru their courts which are
at their disposal. Therefore, a party standing for the
economic emancipation of the workers and peasants,
demanding that the toilers should get the full value of
their labor, cannot make a creed of non-violence. By
its very nature, it is bound to meet the resistance of
those who live and prosper upon exploitation and op-
pression.

I have not tried to invent "a violent revolution" out
of my perverse imagination or by acting as "agent"
of the Communist International. Whatever propaganda
I have made and action I have recommended are
warranted by the objective conditions of the country,

* * *

NOT A CONSPIRACY BUT A REVOLUTION!

The evidence proves that I pointed out the inevitabil-
ity of a revolutionary change in the social and political
conditions of India and that the welfare of the toiling
masses was dependent upon the revolution. I have
been working for the welfare of the Indian masses and
have urged the elimination of all obstacles in the way
to that goal. I tried to organize a working class party
because it is necessary for the liberation of the masses
from political slavery, economic exploitation and social
degradation. The party is a historic necessity and has
a historically revolutionary mission. It is neither a

[26]

mma

conspiracy nor a weapon in any conspiracy. The Brit-
ish King, as well as any other power that stands in the
way of the progress and prosperity of the Indian
masses, must go.

Of course, our attempt to organize a party of the
workers and peasants would be a Quixotic venture
had the condition of the masses been really what the
public prosecutor imagines it to be. In his opening
address he told the assessors that the Indian peasants
were happy in their misery and that I was trying to dis-
turb their happiness for some sinister purpose of mine.
I have already given a few facts and figures to show
that "happy peasants" live only in the imagination of
the public prosecutor, unless the gentleman would ven-
ture to advance a theory that the less one eats and the
more one toils the happier he is.

In reality, the government is against the most harm-
less economic program, for its enforcement would
mean loss to imperialism and its Indian allies, the
princes, big landlords and capitalists. Therefore, the
realization of the program will necessarily mean viola-
tion of the laws of the imperialist government. The
function of the laws is to hold the masses on the star-
vation level so that foreign imperialism and its native
allies can grow rich, and to suppress the attempts of
the masses to rise above the present conditions.

I have not preached violent revolution. I have main-
tained that revolution is a historic necessity. From
time to time, surging forces of social progress reach
the period of a violent outburst. This is caused by the
resistance of the old to the new. An impending revo-
lution produces its pioneers who force events and
herald the maturing of the conflict. The task of the
revolutionary vanguard is to expedite the historical
process caused by objective necessity. They conscious-
ly organize the forces of the revolution and lead them
to victory. I have acted as a pioneer of the Indian
revolution; but the revolution itself is not my invention.
It grows out of the historical conditions of the coun-
try. I have simply been one who perceived it earlier
than others-
Holding such a dynamic view of the revolution, I
could not possibly be a conspirator. As a matter of

[27]

fact, I have always maintained that revolution is not
a conspiracy and that conspiratorial activities are not
always necessarily revolutionary. Consequently, I
have been opposed to secret activities and acts of indivi-
dual terrorism. Political assassination has no place in
my theory and practise of revolution.

I have not tried to manufacture a revolution and to
use the workers and peasants as raw materials for my
sinister fabrication, nor do I believe that the secret
association of a few individuals can serve the purpose
of a revolution. My approach to the matter is not sub-
jective. My propaganda and other activities have been
based upon an analysis of the objective conditions in-
evitably making for a revolution. Therefore, I could
never be a conspirator. I am too much of a revolu-
tionary to be a conspirator.

The propaganda I carried on between 1921-24 was
undoubtedly revolutionary, but it had absolutely noth-
ing to do with conspiracy. I have maintained that the
progress of the Indian people was conditional upon
their freedom from imperialist domination. It is for
my prosecutors to prove that it is not so, that im-
perialist exploitation does not block the progress of
the Indian masses. I have also expressed the opinion
that the foreign conquerors would never leave our
country voluntarily. Let the British government prove
that my opinion is wrong, I have not, however, con-
spired to deprive the British King of the sovereignty
which he does not possess. His is the right of con-
quest and usurpation. Ours is the right of revolt and
self-determination.

The burden of the prosecution evidence is that I
hold certain revolutionary political and social views,
that I have propagated these views and that I have
tried to organize a party of the working class with the
object of putting those views into practise. I admit all
this but I maintain that this does not establish the
charge against me. My conviction would mean an
attack upon the freedom of opinion, expression and
association.

I do not make a secret of my determination of help-
ing the organization of the great revolution which
must take place in order to open up before the Indian

[28]

masses the road to liberty, progress and prosperity.
The impending revolution is an historic necessity. Con-
ditions for it are maturing rapidly. Colonial exploita-
tion of the country creates those conditions. So, I am
not responsible for the revolution, nor is the Commu-
nist International, Imperialism is responsible for it.
My punishment, therefore, will not stop the revolution.
Imperialism has created its own grave-digger, namely,
the forces of national revolution. These will continue
operating till their historic task is accomplished. No
law, however ruthless may be the sanction behind it,
can suppress them.

The very adjective "violent" is superfluous in the
case of revolution, for revolution by its very nature
implies violence. The object of a revolution is to over-
throw the established social order buttressed upon a
particular type of political state. The function of the
state is to suppress and coerce all opposition to the
established order. The essence of the state power is
violence. A revolution, that is, a radical social and
economic transformation of society according to the
need of the given epoch, is therefore conditional upon
the overthrow of the state defending the established
order. Consequently, by its very nature, revolution is
inseparable from violence. The resistance of the estab-
lished order is responsible for it.

The charge against me represents a gross violation of
the Indian people's right to liberty, to set up their own
government responsible to themselves in place of the
present despotic foreign regime. In refuting the absurd
charge, I have purposely not called in the evidence of
foreign and frankly revolutionary authorities. I have
relied exclusively upon liberal English thinkers and
respectable constitutional lawyers to establish my case.
I justify what I have held and done on the unchal-
lengeable authority of Locke, Hume, Bentham, Bage-
hot, Dicey and even Blackstone. You can not punish
me unless you prescribe the writings of these political
philosophers and constitutional lawyers as seditious,
revolutionary and treasonable. I may be punished,
nevertheless. I am the victim of a system which knows
no other law than the law of coercion and violence.

[29]

But I may warn this court in the words of another
historian of the British constitution. Referring to the
case of Hampden, Lord John Russell wrote; "The
judges in Westminster Hall decided against him but
the country was roused and overbalanced by their sym-
pathy the judgment of a court of law."

ft

[30]