Other former Responsivists inclined more towards the CNP
model. At an ’All Maharashtra Political Conference1 in October 1933 the Democratic Swaraj Party (DSP) was formed. Its
president was N. C. Kelkar, a colleague of Jayakar from the earliest days when theylnd both been followers of Tilak. 3
The DSP wanted the establishment of 'a well-defined All- India Party, having the same ideal and objective as the
Con-^ . Zf
gress, but which will avoid /its/ rigidity’. Common to both groups was a belief that Congress was not only neg
lecting the interests of the Hindu majority but was also relegating Maharashtra to a subordinate role in the national movement. Jayakar wrote of the ’Gujerati gang of Patel and
^Bhulabhai/ Desai* ?
The third source of Hindu communalism at this time was the Hindu Mahasabha. As an organization it was formally outside politics and there was no bar to a Congressman being
^■JP **08, Jayakar to Sapru, 11/11/3**.
2Ibid. Jayakar did not, however, totally rule out the possi
bility of co-operation with the neo-swarajists: JP 207, Jayakar to Moonje, 10/**/3**.
•^JP 600, Mandlik to Jayakar, 7/1/3**•
IAR 1935 II, p.319.
"*JP 4o8, Jayakar to Sapru, 11/11/34.
l*+6.
a member.^ It was, however, divided into pro- and anti-Congress groups. At the head of the former was Malaviya himself. The latter was headed by the two main organizers of the Maha- sabha, Ganpat Rai and Padamraj Jain. They were prepared to use the machinery of the Mahasabha to promote political acticn in defence of communal interests* There were Hindu Sabhas in v the provinces, which were constituent parts of the Mahasabha but were virtually autonomous. There was nothing to prevent a provincial Hindu Sabha from putting up its own candidates.
In the event effective political groups based on com
munal identity were established only at the provincial level, but the efforts to achieve an all-India framework formed an essential background: their failure is itself highly sig
nificant.
According to a later press report it was only at the insistence of the Bengali members that the CNP retained the word 'Congress*in its title in 193*+• Whether Malaviya was contemplating a separate Hindu party at this stage is not clear. The next initiative came from Jayakar who, when ap
proached to join the DSP in May 1935j said he would, provided the DSP became the nucleus of an all-India party in opposition ^ to Congress. 3 At the same time, however, the DSP leaders
were in touch with M. S. Aney, who favoured close links with
^Under article V section (c) of the 193*+ constitution >no
Congressman could belong to designated communal organizations, but up to 1937 no organization was so proscribed.
^Leader, 22/*f/36.
3
JP 630, Jayakar to Mandlik, 31/3/35* The file also con
tains a cutting from the Indian Liberal, 22/6/35> which refers to a meeting of Jayakar and C.P.Ramaswamy Iyer to discuss the possibility of a new party to oppose Congress.
Congress. The result of these contacts was that Aney joined the DSP at the beginning of August and immediately became president.'1’ Jayakar later referred to Responsivists who
tried to achieve an 'effete attachment' with Congress, but the fact was that he was politically isolated. 2 Ganpat Rai
attempted during July and August to persuade Jayakar to continue his efforts to establish an all-India Hindu party, but with no effect. Jayakar replied that a new parly could only be. formed if Malaviya were to take the initiative."^
A further move by the Mahasabha was made at its Poona session in December 1935 when it called on provincial Hindu Sabhas to take steps to contest the elections 'wherever necessary'.if
Malaviya had taken no initiatives in 1935? but in the first part of 1936, with the pending elections becoming in-v creasingly a part of the political scene, he attempted both to establish a new and definitive relationship with Congress and to widen the basis of the CNP. After Nehru's return from Europe in March 1936 a series of talks was held between him and Malaviya, The talks appear to have continued inter
mittently until August and were probably held at Malaviya's instance, but it is not possible to be definite as no re
cords were kept and the press printed little information v
1Times of India, 1/7/35 and 6/7/35; IAR 1935 II, pp. 20 and 321.
^JP *f08, Jayakar to Sapru, 8/7/36.
5JP 630, Ganpat Rai to Jayakar, 15/7/35, 6/8/35, 2V8/35;
Jayakar to Ganpat Rai, 18/7/35*
L
IAR 1935 II, p.36.
148.
about them.'*' Nothing came of them: Malaviya was unable to v get freedom of conscience for CNP members who might be selected as candidates, whether individually or as part of an agree
ment over nominations, or to have any substantive changes made in official Congress policy. P. D. Tandon and Aney also had talks with Nehru during this period, but to no avail.2
Although Malaviya1s talks with Nehru were held with the consent of the CNP executive, the pirty was simultaneously considering independent action. On 16 April 1936 an important meeting was held of CNP, Hindu Sabha, and Sikh leaders. It
took place at that point because the Lucknow Congress had just concluded without modifying Congress communal policy.
The meeting changed the name of the CNP to the ’Nationalist Party1 and agreed that it should run its own candidates, v subject to alliances with other groups; this meant primarily Congress but also included liberal and landlord parties. 3 w
The meeting, however, set up no machinery to contest the elections, not even a co-ordinating committee. Implementa
tion was left entirely to the provincial branches, some of which continued to call themselves 'Congress Nationalist'.
The Nationalist Party had little more than a self-proclaimed existence. The next sign of life was a meeting of the party's
^For dates of meetings see Statesman. 24/4/36, 11/7/36.
In June Nehru made a formal press statement on the occurrence of the talks: Times of India. 29/6/56. Malaviya had re
ceived CNP permission to carry on the negotiations: Statesman, 22/5/36.
^Statesman, 11/7/36; Times of India, 24/8/36.
^Statesman, 20/4/36; see also Times of India, 17/4/36.
executive committee at Benares in August, At this the de
cision to contest the elections was reaffirmed and the pro
vincial branches given formal authority to make local pacts.**"
The main reason for these meetings was probably to gather strength for the last ditch attempt that was made at the Bombay AICC meeting to change Congress communal policy. There
after the Nationalist Party (or CNP) functioned only at the provincial level, although Malaviya acted as negotiator for the provincial branches in the Punjab and U.P,2
The other two groups of communal leaders also made fur
ther efforts to establish all-India structures. After the Bombay AICC meeting Jayakar telegraphed to Malaviya:
’Don't neglect present splendid opportunity by
forming all India Nationalist Party broad rational , lines stop avoid short-lived humiliating compromises’
The Lahore session of the Hindu Mahasabha in October 1936 expressed the wish that provincial Sabhas should 'capture the elections’• if The Sabhas were encouraged to form election
boards but no material support was provided nor was any real uniformity demanded in policy matters. As late as December 1936 Padamraj Jain promised Jayakar support for any party he might form, but it was a forlorn hope.5
~**Times of India,11/8/36. The executive committee had been appointed before the April, meeting.
^See below, pp, 211-12,
•^JP 630, telegram Jayakar to Malaviya, 28/8/36. 1+