INDIA — What Must be Done


Source : Pamphlet 1942
Publisher : Communist Party of Great Britain
Transcription/HTML : Salil Sen
Public Domain : Marxists Internet Archive (2010). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit "Marxists Internet Archive" as your source.


THE AUTHOR : Ben Bradley, spent 8½ years In India, travelled throughout the country. Elected Vice-President of the Bombay Textile Union and the Great India Peninsular Railwaymen's Union. Elected Vice-President of the All India Trade Union Congress, 1926.

NEHRU : President of the Indian National Congress Party.

AZAD : Chairman of the Congress. He is a Moslem.

JINNAH : Leader of the Moslem League.

INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS : A political party representing all sections. Stands for National Government, for fighting fascism, and for Indian Independence. Gained 2 out of every 3 votes cast in 1937 elections, and 9 out of 11 provinces formed Congress Governments. It is largest party in India, possibly in world.

BRITISH INDIA AND THE INDIAN STATES : India, under one monarch, is divided as follows: the 562 Indian States under Indian Princes, in contractual relations with the British Crown, and the 11 Provinces of British India. British India has a population of 295,827,000 in an area of 886,000 square miles; the Indian States have a total population of 92,973,000 in an area of 690,000 square miles.

HOW INDIA IS GOVERNED : In the Indian States, by the Princes, who have despotic power. In the Provinces of British India, by Provincial Governors, with complete power, under the authority of the Viceroy's Council. The Viceroy's Council, at the centre, consists of the British Viceroy and a Council, whose members he chooses. He can take decisions on behalf of the whole Government after consulting any one member of the Council. He can reject the advice of the majority if he thinks necessary.

It is a long way to India. But what is happening there affects every one of us as closely as if it were the British Isles.

Japan is battering at India's gates. Over enormous distances; the soldiers of the Axis have captured one vital point after another. Forces as small as 150,000 have conquered millions in a matter of days. 300,000 British men are in Japanese prison camps or dead, defeated because they fought as foreigners on hostile soil.

Now India's people tense themselves to give battle to the armies of Tokyo, and more British soldiers prepare for the next round of the struggle.

By the time you read this, invasion may already have begun.

India's people will fight to the last in defence of their native land. The rallying call to battle, "Who lives if India dies?" uttered by that great Indian leader, Nehru, will be answered by all.

"Who lives if India dies?" is true for us in Britain as well as for the people of India.

Japan is as much our enemy as theirs.

And yet when India's masses fight the Japanese, they will not fight as our partners and equals, as Allies in a common cause.

Wherever the flame of freedom still burns, people have watched with bitter anger the advances made by the Japanese.

Hong Kong, Malaya, Singapore, Borneo, Java: one after the other the enemy seemed to walk through our defences as a knife goes through butter. Now Burma is in peril, and India.

The Nazi master-plan is taking shape -- to join hands with the Japanese across India, so that the riches of the East can be poured into the melting pot of total war against the world.

Why? Why were our men defeated? Why were the peoples of those countries, in their millions, unable to defend themselves? What can we do to learn the lessons of the Far East? Can we do better with India?

Thus the people of Britain questioned their Government. All over the world eyes turned anxiously to Britain, to London, to Westminster. Everyone knew that Japan could be held provided a new plan were adopted by the British Government.

It was with high hope that the people learned of Sir Stafford Cripps' mission. It seemed that Britain at last was going to come to an agreement with India's leaders.

There was disappointment and alarm amongst our friends, and pleasure amongst our enemies, when negotiations broke down.

It seemed incredible that at a moment of such desperate danger, in a battle which needs the mobilisation of every possible friend and ally, Sir Stafford Cripps should return empty-handed.

Incredible, but true.

No fine speeches about what might or might not happen after the war can hide this grim fact. No excuses are good enough to justify so barren an outcome of negotiations on which so much depended.

We have failed to win India, with all its great strength, as our Ally.


India's leaders demanded a National Government for India now. They pointed to the lessons of Malaya, Singapore, Java and the rest, where the peoples were not won to co-operate with us against Japan. They showed that the only practical way to mobilise and inspire every section of India's people, organise all their vast resources for victory, and check decisively the onward sweep of the Japanese, was to form a National Government in India, representing every section of the Indian people. This is the key to meeting the present emergency.

A reasonable proposition.

But Britain refused to agree. That was why negotiations broke down.


Reports of the discussions while Cripps was in India were so confusing that many British people, for long kept in the dark about Indian affairs, simply gave up hope of understanding the issues at stake. They were led to believe that the British Govern¬ment had made a most generous offer of "full self-Government for India" which India's representatives had refused to accept.

What are the facts?

Two questions were involved in the talks.

The first, and most urgent, was that concerned with the immediate pressing problem of India's defence.

The second was Britain's post-war policy in regard to India's demand for self-Government and Independence.

In Britain, the newspapers made it appear that India's representatives were mainly concerned with post-war questions.

In fact -- as the now published statements show -- the representatives of India compelled discussion to centre around what must be done NOW to beat the Japanese. It was not the Indians who lived in a cloud-cuckoo land of after-the-war plans, but the British.

This was made clear as soon as Sir Stafford Cripps arrived. He explained that although the British Government was prepared to make all sorts of promises about what they would do after the war, the one thing they were determined not to do was to allow Indian representatives to assume the responsibility for organising India's defence.

The Government proposed that a number of Indian representatives should be included in the Viceroy's Council, which is the body that governs India, but that "until the new Constitution is framed (i.e. after the war -- B.B.) H.M. Government must in¬evitably bear responsibility for and retain control of the direction of the defence of India as part of their world effort, but the task of organising to the full the military, moral and material resources of India must be the responsibility of the Government of India with co-operation of the people of India:" (Official report).

What does this mean?

It means that the position is left precisely as it was before Cripps went to India!


At the present moment the Viceroy is not only the Governor General of India; he chooses all the members of the Executive Council and presides over every meeting of the Council. He takes decisions sometimes on behalf of the entire government of India after consulting a single member and can reject the advice of even the majority if he thinks it necessary. Moreover, there are several departments in his personal charge, for decisions about which he need not and frequently does not consult the Council.

The "new" proposals thus turned out to be the mixture as before, With responsibility for defence to be left in the hands of the Viceroy's Council. As Cripps remarked on his return to London: "Congress held there was too much reservation of power to the Viceroy, and, therefore, they were not prepared to enter a Government at all." ( Daily Herald, April 23, 1942).

But what kind of a Government were they invited to enter? Not a representative gathering answerable to India's people, but a body appointed by Britain, and over which the Viceroy was to retain his dictator-like powers!

No wonder Nehru, leader of India's National Congress, said it was difficult for him to answer courteously Sir Stafford Cripps' question: "Do you think I would be such a fool as to come here with a mere repetition of Mr. Amery's August offer?"

And yet that is precisely what has been done. India's leaders are expected to turn to the Indian masses and say: "You are refused your own Government to organise and lead you to fight for your own country. You are not recognised as equals in the fight against fascism. You must still be governed by a foreign Viceroy. But trust them, and keep on hoping."

Such an offer could not hope to meet with any enthusiasm.

The disappointment of the Indian leaders was all the more bitter because at one stage in the proceedings it seemed as though plans were definitely being made for the appointment of an Indian Defence Minister. The British press even suggested Nehru might hold office.


The Manchester Guardian correspondent reports: "Statements by Congress leaders indicate that some last-minute development tended to change the tenor of the consultations, particularly in regard to the proposed interim Government. Mr. Nehru says that in the last interview with Sir Stafford before the negotiations broke down he and Dr. Azad were really astonished that all the promises and assumptions we had had in our mind for ten days, and regarding which we had argued, had no foundation?" (April 14th, 1942).

The Congress, said Mr. Rajagopalachari in the Hindustan Times of April 13th, was aghast when told that all the new mem¬bers of the Government would only function like the present members of the Executive Council and not as Ministers in a constitutional Government.

When they protested, they were told they could threaten to resign or use "other forms" of pressure against the Viceroy and the Secretary of State for India. How that was to help in resisting the Japanese was not explained.

"If this issue as to the Viceroy's non-interference had been decided as it should, and easily could have been, Congress would have accepted responsibility. (Mr. Rajagopalachari, Hindustan Times, April 13th).

When Sir Stafford Cripps said to a press conference on April 12th that "Congress wanted everything or nothing; they couldn't get all, so now they have nothing" he was being very unjust.

Congress had, in fact, asked for the minimum essential necessity to meet the present situation. Nehru, replying to the accusa¬tion, said "It was not what we wanted that we told Sir Stafford Cripps but something that we considered essential and irreducible if we were to shoulder effectively the burden of to-day and defend this dear land of ours."

Nehru explained that had put aside in the past in its earnest desire to arrive at a settlement to promote the war effort and arm the whole nation with guns, staves or sheer will for resistance against the Japanese aggression. …. He believed India capable of three or four times her present arms output.

"If a National Government came into being, all the complacency at present visible in Delhi, and typified by those who had their tea at regular hours, disposed of their files, and dressed for dinner, would be swept away, and there would be hell for the indolent." he said.

Obviously an Indian National Government would not permit the same situation as that which existed in Singapore, where, according to Lady Brooke Popham, the British residents were too busy with their tennis and other social engagements to take part in the organisation of defence.

When the breakdown occurred in New Delhi the British people were given to understand that failure was chiefly due to the in¬ability of Indians to agree amongst themselves about the future Indian Constitution and the form Independence was to take after the war.

I have already shown that India's representatives wished to concentrate all attention on the needs of to-day, not of the future. But let us examine these proposals for the "Dominion Status" of India, which Britain made, to see if they are, after all, so benevolent as the newspapers would have us believe.

The British Government stated that it desired:

"The creation of a new Indian Union which shall constitute a Dominion" similar in every respect to the other Dominions.

This plan to come into effect "immediately on the cessation of hostilities."

The new Indian Union should be based on a new Constitu¬tion.


No one can object to these three points. They sound fine. But now let us examine the next three points, which tell us how the new Constitution is to be drawn up:

The new Constitution is to be framed by a special body called an "Electoral College."

The Electoral College is to be composed of members of the Provincial Assemblies who would elect 10 per cent. of their number; representatives from the Indian States; and special representatives.

If any Province is not prepared to accept the Constitution thus made, the Government will recognise its right to remain outside the India Union and to retain its present Constitution.

Such non-acceding Provinces would be allowed to make their own Constitutions, and these would be recognised by the British Government as equal to that of the India Union.

These proposals reveal an aspect of the plan which was not brought-out in newspaper comment in Britain. Less than half of the Electoral College proposed would consist of members of the Provincial Assemblies, who themselves were elected in 1937 by a vote in which only 27 per cent. of the adult population were permitted to go to the polls. The remaining members of the Electoral College would consist of representatives of special Moslem constituencies, Chambers of Commerce, landlords and other special interests, and in addition to this, the Indian Princes, who exercise despotic rule in the Indian States, would be given representation in the College on the basis of the population of each State, and with the same powers as the representatives from the Provincial Assemblies.

And yet the British Government proposed that this non-representative body should be charged with the task of framing a new Constitution. Obviously the vast majority of the Indian people would have no say, and the kind of Constitution that would emerge would be eminently unsatisfactory from the point of view of the Indian people.

But the matter does not end there. After putting forward a plan which would necessarily cause dissatisfaction, the Government then proposes to recognise those Provinces which wish to divide themselves off from India. This would suggest a keeping of the old tradition of "divide and rule."


Such a plan could have only one outcome: India would be "Balkanised," divided up into a number of small states, and frontier and state barriers erected to prevent unity between all the Indian people. According to Sir Stafford Cripps, the States which separated would even be allowed to have separate armies and separate dealings with foreign Governments.

So when this "generous offer" is examined in detail, it turns out to be a plan to get a "new" Constitution framed by an unrepresentative body, the effect of which would be to set up a number of separate kingdoms in India, and thus to intensify every possible form of disunity.

No wonder that this plan was condemned by all sections of Indian opinion. The Calcutta Statesman, one of the leading British papers in India, said: "The blame for the present position lies with the India Office and the official section of the Govern¬ment of India."

So much for the "post-war Constitution" of India, and the plan that was announced as "full government."

But what of the much more urgent question, of securing unity amongst India's people to-day for the present battles?

India's leaders say that the only way every section of their people can be mobilised and united, and all their man power and other resources used full out against the aggressor, is by setting up a National Government. The proposals which Sir Stafford Cripps took with him to India lacked one essential factor -- genuine transference of power to Indian hands. Responsibility without power is a farce. The Indian National leadership knows that it cannot fool the people into believing that the present system dressed up in a new suit means a transference of power into the hands of their chosen representatives.

Nothing else can get the job done.

The Viceroy cannot do it. Britain had its Governors in Hong-Kong, Singapore, Malaya. The Dutch had theirs in Java and Borneo. Were they able to mobilise the native peoples? Every authoritative report that came out of these countries after they had fallen described how the native peoples were either spectators at the battle, or in some cases, even helped the Japanese.


Only by treating the native peoples as equal partners in a world struggle for freedom from fascism can they be won for wholehearted co-operation. This is obvious, and in the Far East, tragically so.

In India, the people will fight the Japanese invader. But they will not be our Allies. They fight for their soil. But not as our comrades in arms.

India's leaders are fighting every day, against the cunning pro¬paganda of the Japanese, who pretend to come as saviours to India, to rescue its people from its English rulers. India's leaders know this is a lie. But it may be difficult to convince all the Indian people that this is so, unless they see something more practical than the empty promises which so far have been made by Britain.

Only a people which is fighting for its freedom, a freedom which is more than a myth and a half-promise, can be expected to put up its whole strength and soul into the fight. Only a Government of Indians, representing the widest sections of Indian people, and responsible to them for its actions, can achieve that 100 per cent. mobilisation that is so desperately urgent for defence.

This is the key to the situation in the Far East.

Arguments against letting Indians form a National Government are plentiful, but only convincing if the people do not know the real facts.

The chief one is that the Indian National Congress is not representative of the whole people, and that in a National Govern¬ment various important minorities would be overshadowed. The most vociferous organisation which puts this argument forward, and the one which is given most publicity is the Moslem League, which claims to represent the Moslem community of India, some 90,000,000 people.

What is the Moslem League in fact, that it should be considered worthy of such careful and considerate treatment at British hands?

In 1937, out of a total number of 480 Moslem seats the Moslem League secured only 104. Out of a possible 7,319,445 Moslem votes, it obtained 321,772 throughout British India. (These figures are given by the Calcutta Statesman Year Book). One cannot, by any flight of fancy, call this a representative body.

It is this organisation which is vociferously demanding the creation of a separate Moslem State; but the majority of Moslems do nor desire such a separation. Abdul Ghaffar Khan, the Congress leader, speaks for the Moslem Pathan of the North-West Frontier Province, where there was a Congress Governtnent. The4do not want separation. The present Governments of the Provinces of Bengal and Sind, both with large Moslem popula¬tions, have expressed opinions against separation.


The Indian National Congress on, the other, hand, is a political party which represents the widest sections of the people, regardless of whether they are Hindus, Moslems, Sikhs, Parsees or any other race or religion. The press, and radio in this country have painted the Congress as a Hindu body. This cannot be due to ignorance of the facts.

In the 1937 elections the Congress secured two out of every three votes cast. Congress Governments were formed in 9 out of 11 Provinces. The map at the beginning of this pamphlet shows clearly the very widespread influence of Congress in the provinces of British India. At the outbreak of war only two provinces of British India had non-Congress Governments. A National Government would obviously be mainly based on the National Congress, and support its policy. This would be in the interests of all sections.

Unconvinced by these telling facts, some people declare that a National Government would be "dictatorship." It is true, they say, that the situation is dangerous, and that unity is essential. But where is the guarantee that the National Government will not be a dictatorship of the Congress Party, and that the minori¬ties will not be gradually squeezed into subjection as a result of this emergency measure?

The answer, is that the Indian National Congress is not only well aware of the special interests of various communities in the vast Indian population, but counts in its membership -- and among its leaders -- representatives them all. Again and again Nehru has declared that the interests of all communities would be pro¬tected under Congress, and has expressed the willingness of Congress to co-operate with other sections.

The last argument of those who do not favour the setting-up of a National Government NOW is that it is just not practical. The Japanese; they say, are on the doorstep; it is impossible anything but stay just as we are, shut our eyes, fight like the devil and hope for the best.

This is a singularly feeble argument. The Japanese are on the doorstep whether the defence of India is in the hands of Indians or not. The situation is very critical we are horribly late in preparing to meet it, whether there is a National Government or not. But that does not mean either that Britain must retain control of defence, or that it is immaterial who does.


Have we proved ourselves and our system so strong in the Fir Eastern war theatre that we have a right to be so certain that only we can defend India? Was not the lesson of Singapore, Malaya and Burma that garrisons or imperial armies are of little use unless the peoples are free for active struggle at our side?

There was never any question of military power being taken out of the hands of the British Commander-in-Chief. The proposal of the Indians was that General Wavell should continue in command, but that an Indian Defence Minister should be appointed to co-operate with him, and that on this Indian should lie the responsibility of mobilising the people into a vast citizen's army, and a defensive force behind the army. Only an Indian could do this.

An Indian National Government, in which the other main parties were represented as well as the Congress -- and this is what the Congress proposes -- would have the unquestionable support of every anti-fascist worker or peasant in the country.

The Indian people are without doubt passionately anti-fascist. For generations they have been fighting for their freedom and are schooled and steeled in that struggle. No-one needs to explain to India what fascism means, for they have long understood correctly the nature of both fascism and imperialism.

Equally they understand what is necessary to fight these enemies. Since the end of the last war the Indian Congress has led the people in the struggle against fascism and imperialism. They have roused the people in millions for aid to China and Spain, and for their own freedom.

In the early 1930s, during the great civil disobedience movement, the numbers of Indian patriots and Congressmen in jail reached 75,000. It was around this period that the working-class and peasant movement reached its highest point in organisation and strike struggle. It was then, in the effort to secure wage improvements and decent working conditions, that the Indian workers laid the foundation of a very solid trade union movement. The strength and militancy of this movement were proved by the eagerness of the Government to maim it by arresting its leaders especially on the occasion of the Meerut Conspiracy Case.

The membership of the trade unions registered under the Government of India Act is approximately 500,000 and there is a large number of unregistered unions. The movement is growing, and the workers are becoming more firmly organised.

This is a high figure when the fact is taken into account, that only 2 per cent. of the population is supported by industry, and of these, only about 150,000 are engaged in vital heavy industries.

Would not the support of these militants and anti-fascists be an asset to defence?


Last December, before the Cripps' mission was dreamed of -- outside the War Cabinet at any rate, the Bombay Provincial trade union Congress passed a resolution which left no room for doubt about Bombay workers' attitude to fascism, It said

... "the victory of the progressive forces … in this all peoples war against Hitler fascism now becomes the precondition for the achievement of independence and complete democracy in the country ... The victory of Hitler fascism on the other hand would mean the victory and the strengthening of the most reactionary forces every¬where, including Great Britain, and would therefore mean a terrific set-back to our own struggle for freedom.

"We must vigorously and boldly tell the workers that the war of the Soviet peoples and of the British people is our war as well. It is a war which the people have to win in their own interests. We want the war effort to be in¬creased a thousandfold."

That resolution indicates that India's trade unionists want to act as partners in a great alliance against fascism.

And what of India's peasants? Are they raw material to become allies of Japan? Here is a statement of N.G. Ranga, leader of the All-India Peasants' Organisation, the "Kisan Sabha," writing in December, again before the Cripps visit :-

"The Indian peasants associate themselves whole-heartedly with the Allies in their fight against the fascist powers, but declare that their material and whole-hearted support will be greater and more effective if the freedom of India and other dependencies is conceded ..."

There are thousands of anti-fascists in prison. They are people who have been put into gaol because they have taken part in political activity of an anti-fascist or militant trade unionist nature. Many of them are Communists. Many are supporters of the Congress, or trade union and peasant leaders. Nehru himself until quite recently occupied a prison cell into which he had been sent by the British Government. These prisoners, workers, students and peasants, who command the support of literally millions of people, are required for the fight against fascism. Their courage, energy and determination, and their ability to lead, inspire and organise their people should not be shut in a prison cell.

How can the Indian people take seriously our declarations that we fight for freedom against fascism, when we lock up in our prisons thousands of the most convinced and capable anti-fascists India has ever had?

India's working class is one in which Hindus and Moslems work side by side in industry and belong to the same trade unions, because the workers have learned through their own experiences the meaning and truth of the slogan -- united we stand, divided we fall." Their trade unions and their leaders will be the driving force in India's defence; they could play a big part in an Indian National Government.

The Communist Party in India is illegal, But in January this year, one of its members, Mahmud Ali Khan, expressed the feeling of the whole Indian working class when he called on the Congress to realise that the supreme issue before mankind was the achievement of a final and complete victory over Hitler and his allies. The present policy of the British Government, he said, should not prevent the Indian people from taking their right¬ful place in the war against fascism. The All-India Congress Committee was asked to declare its full and whole-hearted support to the cause of the peoples of the Soviet Union, China, Britain, America and of the Nazi occupied countries.

This was a clear lead to India's people. In order to carry it effectively into operation, the many Trade Union, Peasant and Communist leaders must be released from India's prisons.


And what of India's resources? They are tremendous, if only they can be fully mobilised and utilised.

India's coal reserves, for instance, are reported by the Geological Survey of India to be 36,000,000,000 tons, while the reserves of high-grade iron-ore near the coal-fields are reported to be 20,000,000,000 tons.

Manganese for steel production is one-third of the world supply, and vast deposits of sulphur have recently been discovered -- hitherto believed to be unobtainable in India. India's production of high grade steel has begun to exceed that of Australia, and the manufacture of armoured plate in sufficient quantities is no longer beyond her resources.

Why, then, should India be regarded chiefly as a source of raw material only, and permitted to manufacture only an infinitesimal quantity of vital war-products? Why should she not manufacture automobiles, aircraft and ships?

Mr. Amery showed himself a master of understatement when he said, towards the end of last year:

"Most raw materials upon which a modern army depends are to he found within the Indian Empire ..." but "the production of the larger and more important instruments of modern war -- notably tanks and aeroplanes -- lags far behind." It would have been more honest to say that there is at present practically no production of these essentials at all.

Only about 3 per cent. of India's vast resources are being exploited ( Labour Research, December, 1941).

Just as important, but just as imperfectly tapped, are India's resources of man-power. True there is an Indian Army, approach¬ing one million strong. India possesses a mere handful of pilots. But India is a country of some 380,000,000 population, and there is a vast expanse of territory to be defended.

Indians have played their part nobly in many of the theatres of war. The old myth which said that only certain "war-like tribes" among the Indians were fighters is played out.

But we do not want any army composed of certain subjects of the Indian Princes, lent (as if they were slaves) to the Imperial Government in return for a guarantee stuck on to the Princely throne. To defend India against fascism a great citizen army is needed, such as Nehru pictures, many millions strong, with the whole population mobilised in its rear, in guerillas, Home Guard, and Civil Defence.


Those who believe that it is no longer possible to mobilise and equip India need only look at the magnificent example of China, whose heroic people has kept Japanese fascism at bay for nearly five years.

China, too, was a vast country with a population chiefly con¬sisting of peasants, unprepared for war, with her industry, her man-power and her raw material resources only beginning to be mobilised.

China, too, was riddled with foreign exploiters. Though not a subject nation like India, China had plenty of excuses for sitting down, wringing her hands, and crying "Too late!"

Yet the Chinese people, united behind a National Government, are now in the forefront of the great anti-fascist nations, and no one dare give them anything but praise. And China has realised that the struggle against fascism is an international affair. That is why Chinese troops are fighting by the side of British and Burmese in Burma.

When the Chinese General Chiang Kai-Shek visited Nehru in India there was not one nation that did not realise the great importance of this event, and not one nation that did not know it must listen attentively to what the Chinese people had to say.

Egypt is another example of a country where recently a National Government has been formed, under the leadership of Nahas Pasha, who, for Egypt, represents the same progressive forces as Nehru does for India. Britain welcomed Nahas Pasha and his Government. No one raised questions of religious differences within the country although there are two main sects, the Moslems and the Coptics, because all are united around the Government for defence of liberty and the independence of their country.

The time has come to put an end to all these ridiculous arguments and excuses which prevent us from coming to a settlement with India's people.

To get a National Government in India is no way less important for the people of Britain than it is for the people of India.

It is utter lunacy to refuse to harness the whole-hearted aid of a brave and determined people, 380 millions strong. Britain may be strong -- but not so strong as to afford to weaken its battle against the fascist hordes.

Britain has its own National Government. So have America, Russia, China. Our fight would be far weaker were any of us to have Governments thrust upon us and not of our own choosing.

India must have its own National Government. Nothing else can take the place of this urgent necessity.

This demand must go up in Britain from every town, village and factory. The people must insist that the Government changes its mistaken policy.

Demand the release of all anti-fascist prisoners, so that they can take their part in leading and organising their country's defence.

Give the Indian people every assistance and encouragement in the organisation of units of defence -- guerrillas, Home Guards and every form of organisation that can help to beat the Japanese.

Let us remove the restrictions on India's industry and military organisation, so that this brave and determined people can enter with us as equal partners in the struggle for the future or humanity.

Let every Labour, Trade Union and Co-Operative organisation make its voice heard. Let the workers in the factories speak. Send telegrams to the Prime Minister -- from the factories, pits, yards, and depots, from Shop Stewards' Committees and Trade Unions.

Insist on a National Government for India NOW!