The Royal Indian Naval (RIN) Mutiny, which started on 18 February 1946 and ended on 24 February 1946, is considered one of those major events alongside the Indian National Army (INA) Trials and Quit India Movement which eventually forced the British Colonial Empire to leave India in August 1947. Almost 30,000 naval ratings (personnel of the Royal Indian Navy which was briefly rechristened as Azad Hind Nausena and later became Indian Navy after independence) affecting almost 80% of the ships and all the naval bases rose up in revolt against the British Rule.
The ‘RIN mutiny’ which started from HMIS Talwar was led by a 14 men committee headed by the Leading Signalman Mohammad Shuaib Khan (more famous as M. S. Khan or Punnu Khan). Biswanath Bose who led the 200 naval ratings at HMIS Assam into the mutiny recalls Khan as a man who “Shouldered the responsibilities which; no ordinary man would venture to do, particularly at the very crucial hour. He had the required capabilities of guiding and directing the Committee.”
Here we are producing his answers to the questions put to him by Lt. Percy S. Gourgey who was serving the Royal Indian Navy at that time. Percy had these talks with him while the mutiny was still on. Percy, born in Mumbai and later moved to England, was Honorary Secretary of the Zionist Association in Mumbai between 1947-1953, a reporter and a writer in the newspaper “Speak” in India between the years 1953 – 1969. He was also an acting member of the executive of the World Jewish Congress in 1953-1958, and a delegate to the World Jewish Congress meetings.
Lt. Percy S. Gourgey: “”Why did you (M. S. Khan) mutiny, and how did you come to do it in this way?”
M. S. Khan: “I told you, thousands of ratings have similar problems. Some time ago we in Talwar became absolutely fed up and decided something drastic must be done to shake the authorities. But we did not know where to begin, or how to organise ourselves. And then someone had an idea. Some of our friends got in touch with members of the Congress and other nationalists amongst the civilians. They told us all our troubles were due to foreign rule and until the British Raj was sent back to Britain, there would be no proper solution. They said ninety per cent of four hundred million Indians live in villages like our families and suffer from poverty, ignorance and illness. Only Indian leaders like Gandhi and Nehru, who have a deep understanding of the problems of their poor brothers and sisters, can lead the people out of their suffering and poverty.
“They suggested plans for a mass strike. The authorities may call it ‘mutiny’ but we understand mutiny to be the violent and bloody overthrow of the officers commanding us. On the other hand, our original intention was, and still is, to have a mass sit-down strike in all ships and establishments, until the authorities take sincere, concrete steps to settle our grievances. But we want this strike to be peaceful, if we can achieve our aims peacefully why should we want any harm to come to our superior officers?”
Gourgey: “But,things have taken a violent turn. And not only In the Navy. Civilian riots have broken out all over India.”
Khan: “We can’t take responsibility for that. Who can blame the civilians if they show sympathy for our suffering, which is also their suffering, because we are all like brothers. Our common suffering unites us. Suffering gives the power to perceive and to understand. Mahatma Gandhi has said: ‘My aim is to wipe every tear from every eye.’ If he wants to remove pain and misery, then we who suffer, must we not follow him?”
Gourgey: “If the mutineers are engaged in a sit-down strike of the kind you indicated, how could you expect the authorities not to resort to force ultimately to stop it?”
Khan: “We can only hope they won’t”
Gourgey: “But suppose they do! What then?”
Khan: “If we are true satyagrahis (believers in truth and non-violence) we shall still not resist them physically.”
Gourgey: “Aha! So you can be called passive resisters!”
Khan : (brusquely) “I don’t like the word ‘passive’. It gives the impression of inaction. On the contrary, we shall resist to our utmost strength — till we exhaust the limit of our moral, mental and intellectual capacities, but without the use of physical force or violence.”
Gourgey: “What does that mean in practice?”
Khan: “It means that we would try to reason with the authorities to see the justice of our cause. But if they are not so persuaded, we shall lift a little finger to resist them if they bodily arrest us and push us behind bars.”
Gourgey: “If it came to that, then your cause is lost!”
Khan: “Not necessarily. Others will take up our cause. Public opinion will be aroused. Agitation through the press, platform and Parliament and in the Legislative Assembly will be vigorously conducted by our supporters. Mass countrywide meetings will be organized. So loud will be the voice of the people that the authorities will sooner or later be forced to release us, and appreciate the justice of our cause. This is what happened in Gandhi’s mass, non-violent campaigns of 1922, 1931, and 1942. Alongside these campaigns, the Congress followed what Gandhiji called the ‘Constructive Programme’ and it is vitally important to remember this aspect of our freedom movement. But as I was explaining: these campaigns were preceded and followed by periods of non-cooperation, that is, by the non-payment of taxes resignation from government posts, the renunciation of titles and honours, boycott of foreign goods and purchase of swadeshi or domestic goods and khadi or homespun cloth. This is what Gandhiji also called ‘civil disobedience’ aimed at undermining the authority of, and causing disrespect to, the foreign government and its system of law and order. When you deliberately break the law you strike at the very roots of the governmental system.”
Gourgey: “Say if in the Courts of Justice you are found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment?”
Khan: “At the trial we personally shall offer no defence. We are confident that truth will prevail. Our faith in our cause will ultimately be justified. We shall be prepared to accept the maximum punishment imposed by the law.”
Gourgey: “Will you then accept years of imprisonment?”
Khan: “Gladly. If we are in the wrong by breaking the law we deserve imprisonment. Gandhi had prison sentences for eight years. Nehru for fourteen years! Perhaps they are the better for it! Justice is Truth in Action. Whoever violates Truth must be prepared to suffer for it. That is not martyrdom, that is common sense. Martyrs are those who are made to suffer by the authorities who know that they themselves are in the wrong in the passing of the sentence and in the manner of its execution.”
Gourgey: “Getting back to the mutiny, how do you think it will end?”
Khan: “I don’t know how it will end. I know only how I want it to end. That is, for the authorities to deal with our demands fully and fairly.”
Gourgey: “You may be held responsible for starting the mutiny. I don’t know if you are being sensible, but you have plenty of courage.”
Khan: “We need it. Non-violent methods in defense require a higher degree of moral courage than the use of violence. When attacked violently one instinctively wants to defend oneself violently. The ordinary law allows the use of force necessary for self-defense. But the higher moral law of nonviolence enjoins self-restraint and self-control. This is more difficult.
Gourgey: “Then you might allow yourself to be killed?”
Khan: “Non-violence requires self-sacrifice. True satyagrahis must be prepared to pay the supreme price. But before doing so, we shall strain to our utmost to convert our adversary to appreciate our point of view. Such conversion is our constant purpose.”
Gourgey: “Your purpose is defeated if you are killed!”
Khan: “We might have been killed anyway! In which case, there is no chance of the enemy being converted. But if he has killed nonviolent resisters, there is hope of his seeing the error of his ways, leading to repentance and ultimate conversion. Then our sacrifice would have benefited not ourselves but our community and our children.”
Gourgey: “But if you would have used force, you would have had an equally good chance of defeating your enemy.”
Khan: “That depends on the circumstances. Supposing you do win, it’s a hollow victory. Violence breeds violence and the spirit of vengeance. In the First World War the superior military might of the Allies eventually defeated Germany. Then Germany was filled with the desire for vengeance. The result was the evil of Hitler and the Second World War, just twenty years later!”
Gourgey: “Hitler was destroyed! And there was an ideal, or the moral force of Freedom to back up the military force.”
Khan: “Such a philosophy of violence inevitably led to this terrible War, bringing death and destruction to millions. But with this philosophy, Hitler too believed, rightly or wrongly, he was fighting for Germany’s freedom. So if two nations, sincerely believing in their ultimate ideals, feel that only the clash of arms will resolve the clash of ideals, there is no hope for humanity! As we see now in the invention of the atom bomb, modern military science has made defence for one nation seem offensive to another!
But if they accept the philosophy of non-violence, there will be no limit to their patiently negotiating and seeking to reconcile their conflicting views. Humanity will at least have breathing space, if not agreement! Thus the peaceful settlement of international, and indeed, individual disputes can be achieved. You say Britain believes she fought for Freedom. How can Indian nationalists believe this to be so when Britain gave no guarantee of India’s freedom?”
Gourgey: “The whole aim of British colonialism is to train dependent territories for self-government.”
Khan: “The principle of colonialism, British or other, is bad because it denies equality and freedom to nations and to individuals. It hinders the development of their particular genius, best expressed in freedom. The sooner colonialism ends the better! Genuine independence, which India wants, is best! History has shown that British colonialists only part with power when forced to do so, as was the case with the United States of America.”
Gourgey: “This is not quite true in the case of some other countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand.”
Khan: “Firstly, these were European peoples, mainly of Anglo-Saxon origin. Secondly, the use of force or threat of its use, has been the final deciding factor! Yet if Britain transfers sovereign power to India in peaceful agreement with Indian nationalists, we believe a new hope and a new force will be created for all subject nations.”
Gourgey: “To whom will Britain transfer power? Hindus or Muslims?”
Khan: “This will be arranged in negotiations, and conferences between the various leaders concerned. If India is partitioned – as in 1940 Jinnah and the Muslim League said they want a separate Muslim State of Pakistan – that is India’s own internal affair. If there is to be a civil war between Hindus and Muslims this is no excuse for withholding independence. It is no worse than the precedent of British history, where before the United Kingdom became united there was much fighting between the English themselves and later the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish, all of whom the English crushed. And then Ireland was partitioned and the Irish Free State created in 1922. I am an Indian Muslim and I trust our leaders.
Gourgey: “You said the sooner colonialism ends the better! But timing for self-government is an important factor. How can Britain relinquish power if the dependent peoples are not prepared for it?”
Khan: “What is the criterion for such preparedness? Is it education? If so, to what extent? What about the degree of industrial and agricultural development? The provision of essential services, public administration, defence, communications’ etc.? How do you decide when the people are in a position to exercise independent judgement and make sound decisions? These were certainly not done in the appeasement of Hitler and Mussolini in the thirties! Two world wars in thirty years causing death at the hand of man to over fifty million men, women and children – the greatest and cruellest destruction in history – had their cause and origin in Europe. There is no real answer to these questions. If the same criteria were adopted for European nations, many should still be denied sovereign power!”
Gourgey: “The mutiny has set loose forces of communist subversion among the civilian populace.”
Khan: “We are not responsible for that! Communism breeds where the needs of the masses are unfulfilled. Where there exists poverty, hunger and ignorance. Communists will seek to exploit any such situation. The authorities can best meet the communist challenge by providing for the needs of the masses. In our Central Strike Committee we reject communists and their methods. Communism means subservience to Moscow. They bring a sham independence. It is also shameful! We won’t exchange one set of imperialist masters for another! But you must be clever to outwit communists. They play a subtle game. And it is in the minds and hearts of men. To win, you must meet and defeat them on their own ground. Brute force is certainly not enough. This is where non-violence is best! It calls for soul-force and intellectual ability. With this weapon we can defeat colonialists and communists!”
Gourgey: “Gandhi’s teaching about truth and non-violence requires you to have the courage of your convictions.”
Khan: “Not only that! You need supreme faith and supreme moral courage. Gandhiji himself would sooner die than hurt a fly! The West does not appreciate his philosophy, which is more simple than subtle. The masses of India understand Gandhi. That is why they follow him.”
Gourgey: “But they have no arms.”
Khan: “They can acquire these arms, somehow, if they wish. About thirty years ago, no one believed the poor masses of Russia could ever overthrow the all-powerful Tsar. But the communists did it, by violence, which Lenin taught them was the only way.”
Gourgey: “So you believe that Gandhi’s faith in non-violence will win through.”
Khan: “Absolutely. It is the only way. All depends on faith.”
Gourgey: “As a Jew, I believe Faith and Reason are not contradictory. Indeed there is a reason underlying faith. This you can trace to the First Cause of Creation. Despite the theory of evolution, a Supreme Being created the first atom, the first impulse of life, of being… Science discovers the laws which Religion knows to exist. Ultimately, through religion or science one must come to the Eternal Source of all the universe. Faith in God, faith in oneself, faith in one’s cause, will conquer all. If you have such faith, I believe you will win.”
Khan: “I agree. It is the true path and the path of truth.”
Two days later on 23 February 1946, Khan declared after meeting Sardar Patel;
“I am of the opinion that having received this assurance, we should now surrender and lay down our arms. We can rely on our leaders to see that justice is done. Do not think that we are surrendering to the British. We are surrendering to the people because the whole nation is with us.”
(The opinions expressed by the author are his personal)
