“There would be the risk of bigger men coming in from outside, but I don’t see that they could do much, on the occasion of the arrival. There may be bigger men, helping sub rosa (secretly) such as the unaccountable Maharaja of Mahmudabad.”
- W.Cassels, Commissioner of Lucknow, informed Jagdish Prasad, Chief Secretary of U.P, on 9 November 1928 prior to the visit of Simon Commission in Lucknow.
The Commission was scheduled to be in Lucknow on 29 November and the Indian National Congress had decided to protest against it with strikes, sloganeering and other methods. “Bigger men coming in from outside” referred to the leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Govind Ballabh Pant, Gauri Shankar etc. The police suspected that Maharaja Sir Mohammad Ali Mohammad Khan of Mahmudabad was leading the anti Simon Commission protests from behind the scenes.
The suspicion was not entirely wrong. Chaudhry Kahliquzzaman, one of the tallest Congress leaders in Lucknow of the time, later said that it was the Maharaja of Mahamudabad who had suggested a novel form of protest against the Commission. It was decided that Taluqdars (Landlords) would throw a tea party in honour of the members of the Commission on 5 December 1928. Maharaja asked the Congress leaders what they were doing about this party. The place would be heavily guarded and protestors could not reach the venue. Maharaja asked why didn’t they fly kites and balloons with “Simon Go Back” written over them over the venue?
The scheme was finalised and Maharaja funded the material required. On the scheduled date, the sky over Kaiserbagh was full of these kites and balloons. These kites were made to crash at the venue of the tea party. Thus, the message was delivered to the commission directly.
The police had the intelligence inputs that Maharaja was planning something against the commission but they had no idea what it was. So, the Maharaja’s house, which was near the venue of the tea party, was kept under tight vigil. The people in the house were under house arrest. Looking at the stature of Mahmudabad, this was a big issue later raised in the legislative councils and newspapers.
Maharaj complained to the Chief Secretary, “A police force has been lined near the wall of the house, as if the inmates of the house being guarded, leaving the thoroughfare without a single police…. I know well what it means. I only draw your attention because you are the Chief Secretary.”
In fact, C. W. Gwynne, the Deputy Commissioner of Lucknow, informed the Commissioner that around 60 Congress workers led by Gauri Shankar Mishra of Allahabad (now, Prayagraj) were arrested from the roofs of the houses of Maharaja and Basdeo Lal near the venue of the tea party on 5 December. They were there to fly kites and register the protest. In his report Gwynne also said that even if Maharaja was not directly involved in the Congress led protests his secretary must, otherwise such a help to the protestors could not be provided from the premise of his house.
Congress and its sympathisers raised the issue of disrespect to Indians especially Maharaja in the Council. The Chief Secretary believed, “This was chiefly designed to secure the sympathy of the Muslim members.”
The Pioneer, a nationalist newspaper printed from Allahabad (Prayagraj), in a report published on 19 December 1928 stated, “The Maharajah of Mahmudabad is a well known figure, not only in provincial politics but throughout India. He commands the respect of every citizen — be he Mahomedan or Hindu—and during the Governorship of Sir Harcourt Butler he was a popular and successful Home Member, administering the police….. He does not, however, approve of the Simon Commission and accordingly he is now viewed with the greatest suspicion by Government, and is included among the objectionable politicians who figure in the C.I.D. fortnightly reports, every time they say or do anything. Although he is a supporter of the boycott, he has never taken part in any processional demonstrations against the Commission, nor allowed his house or grounds to be used for such purposes. Yet, despite this irreproachable attitude, it is frankly admitted by the Government that his house was twice surrounded by police, that plain clothes policemen occupied one of his rooms, and that he and his family and his staff were subjected to humiliation and insult.”
It was also reported, “Despite the fact that the Deputy Commissioner promised that the police invasion would not be repeated, a police official told the Private Secretary of the Maharajah, when the insult was repeated, that he ‘didn’t care what the Deputy Commissioner might say’. The Deputy Commissioner, for his part, is reported to have explained to the Maharajah that he was powerless in the matter and that the order emanated from a higher authority. Following the first incident the Maharajah was invited to Government House by the Governor and Sir Malcolm Hailey expressed regret to the Maharajah for the incidents. From the recital of these astonishing facts it is obvious that Government were either cognisant of the orders given with regard to the Maharajah, and that their apologies were, therefore, meaningless or that having general orders for police precaution some senior police official exceeded these instructions and, relying upon the general intention of the Government, felt himself in so strong a position, as to be able to ignore the apologies and expressions of regret made by the Chief Secretary, the Deputy Commissioner and the Home Member.”
The Leader, published from Allahabad (now, Prayagraj), reported, “The disclosures made by the mover of the censure motion in the U.P. Legislative Council on Dec. 13 regarding the insulting treatment accorded to the Maharaja of Mahmudabad, the members of whose household were for the time being reduced to the position of prisoners, and whose secretary it was stated, could not move from one room to another, would cause widespread resentment. Would the Maharaja have received such considerate attention from the police if he had not been one of the leaders of the movement for the boycott of the Commission?”
The Indian Daily Mail reported that Chintamani raised the issue of police brutality against the Maharaja in the United Provinces Legislative Council. The report said, “Mr. Chintamani said that he had in his possession correspondence and photographs which proved conclusively that the Maharaja and members of his family were virtually in police custody. Evidently the Maharaja’s fault is that he had at heart the interest of the nation and refused to join the ranks of the communalists in their attempt to destroy its unity. His support to the Nehru Report perhaps does not fit in with the ideas of the bureaucracy and hence these manifestations of its disapproval. But the Maharaja is in good company in his present plight for almost every Indian politician, moderate or extremist, it is well known, is kept under observation. If anyone, though he may be in the good books of Government, were to utter one word breathing manliness or patriotism, all decency is thrown to the winds and his movements are watched.”
The Indian members of the Council led by Chintamani passed a vote of censure against the police action. The report said, “The U. P. Council passed a vote of censure against the Government for the police atrocities at Lucknow during the stay of the Simon Commission. It was revealed in the course of the debate that the Maharaja of Mahmudabad, an ex-member of the U.P. Government in charge of Law and Order, was grossly insulted by the police and left his house in consequence to live in another part of the city. No real defence was put forward by the Government for the lawless behaviour of the police, and such was the strength of feeling in the Council that the Government had not the courage to demand a division.”
(The Views are personal of the author)
