The
Marxist
Volume: 13, No. 01
Jan-March 1996
Shapurji
Saklatvala
and
the
Fight
against
Racism
and
Imperialism
1921-28
Shapurji
Saklatvala
was
elected
the
Labour
MP
for
Batteresa
North
at
the
General
Election
in
1922.
He
lost
his
seat
a
year
later,
but
was
re-elected,
this
time
as
a
communist,
at
the
December
1923
election.
He
represented
the
South
London
constituency
for
five
years
until
defeated
by
a
Labour
candidate
in
1929.
Saklatvala
was
one
of
only
four
communists
ever
to
be
elected
to
the
House
of
Commons.
He
was
also
distinctive
in
being
Labour's
first
non
white
MP.
The
period
of
his
active
political
life,
stretching
from
1916
to
1936,
covers
a
momentus
era
in
socialist
politics.
Inspired
by
the
Russian
revolution,
like
so
many
others
in
the
Labour
movement,
he
moved
sharply
to
the
left.
Although
not
a
foundation
member
of
the
Communist
Party
of
Great
Britain,
he
joined
the
party
from
the
Independent
Labour
Party
in
1921.
This
was
a
few
months
after
the
ILP's
Annual
Conference
had
rejected
a
move
to
affiliate
to
the
Communist
International.
He
remained
a
loyal
and
active
member
of
the
CPGB
until
his
death
in
1936.
His
activity
in
the
party
as
both
a
grass
roots
activist,
an
MP,
and
also
as
a
member
of
the
Central
Committee,
covered
the
first
formative
years
of
British
communism.
Saklatvala's
life,
covering
as
it
does
a
testing
period
for
revolutionary
socialists,
can
give
an
insight
into
how
communists,
over
half
a
century
ago,
tackled
the
still
hotly
contested
issues
of
race,
and
the
struggle
against
imperialism.
Saklatvala's
conversion
to
socialism
came
about
as
a
direct
result
of
his
opposition
to
colonialism.
He
settled
in
Britain
from
India
in
1905
at
the
age
of
30.
He
had
already
experienced
at
first
hand
the
injustices
of
the
colonial
system,
and
the
racism
that
was
its
necessary
bedfellow.
He
left
India,
in
part,
because
of
his
brushes
with
the
British
authorities.
But
when
he
arrived
in
England
he
was
far
from
being
a
socialist.
The
wealthy
Tata
family,
to
which
he
was
related,
like
many
others
in
the
Indian
upper
class,
were
Gladstonian
liberals.
On
his
arrival
in
London
he
stayed
at
the
National
Liberal
Club,
where
his
family
had
enrolled
him
as
a
life
long
member.
It
was
Saklatvala's
contact,
over
the
next
few
years,
with
British
socialists,
that
lead
to
his
conversion.
In
1909,
at
Manchester,
where
he
was
working
as
a
departmental
manager
for
Tata's,
he
joined
the
Independent
Labour
Party.
From
then
onwards
Saklatvala
was
to
spend
much
of
his
time
in
pursuit
of
his
two
main
concerns
--
socialism
and
anti
colonialism.
Although
his
socialist
ideas,
under
the
impact
of
the
Russian
Revolution,
underwent
a
radical
transformation,
his
approach
to
colonial
freedom
remained
consistent.
That
is
he
constantly
sought
to
build
a
united
front
between
the
workers
of
Britain
and
the
forces
for
liberation
in
the
colonies.
This
approach
can
be
seen
in
one
of
the
first
Labour
movement
organisations
to
concern
itself
with
anti-imperialism,
the
Workers
Welfare
League
of
India.
The
league
was
established
by
Saklatvala
in
1917.
The
aim
of
the
League
was
to,
"enlist
the
sympathy
and
help
of
British
workers
on
behalf
of
labour
in
India
independently
of
all
political
movements".
The
need
for
as
united
front
of
British
and
Indian
workers
was
expressed
in
a
statement
of
principles,
issued
by
the
League
in
1919.
The
statement
was
signed
by
Saklatvala
and
a
number
of
Trade
Union
leaders,
including
Arthur
Pugh
from
the
Iron
and
Steel
Trades
Federation.
It
stressed
that,
"the
Indian
labour
problem
is
to
be
recognised
as
an
English
problem,
seriously
affectly
the
question
of
maintenance
of
standards
of
life
among
the
workers
working
competitively
in
the
same
industries
within
the
Empire".
The
League's
united
front
perspective
also
effected
its
organisation.
It's
objective
was,
"to
bring
together
representatives
of
the
working
classes
in
Great
Britain
and
India
in
order
that
they
may
be
of
mutual
aid
to
each
other'.
To
this
end
the
League
had
separate
British
and
Indian
Committees.
However,
no
proposal
was
considered
final
until
passed
by
the
General
Committee
which
was
composed
of
members
from
both
Britain
and
India.
The
idea
of
this
was
that,
"measures
of
reform
may
be
proposed
and
adopted
free
from
prejudice
and
one
sidedness".
Saklatvala
was
the
first
secretary
of
the
League's
Indian
Committee,
while
Arthur
Field,
who
lived
in
Batteresa,
was
the
General
Secretary.
Another
Batteresa
man,
Duncan
Carmichael,
later
to
be
both
a
Batteresa
Labour
councillor,
and
the
Secretary
of
the
London
Trades
Council,
was
also
strongly
associated
with
the
League.
Alongwith
Saklatvala
he
submitted
a
number
of
proposals
on
behalf
of
the
League
to
a
House
of
Commons
Select
Committee
on
Indian
Reforms
in
1919.
In
the
preable
to
the
report,
entitled
`the
Empire
Labour'
the
League
claimed
to
be,
"the
only
body
that
combines
in
it
the
actual
knowledge
of
Indian
economic
conditions
with
practical
experience
of
the
working
of
the
British
Labour
organisations
in
this
country".
The
League,
from
its
earliest
days
established
a
base
in
the
British
Labour
movement.
A
number
of
national
Trade
Unions
were
affiliated
to
it,
as
were
numerous
trade
union
branches.
For
many
years,
until
1928,
the
League
was
the
All
India
Trade
Union
Congress'
representative
in
Britain.
Saklatvala
on
the
League's
behalf,
spoke
at
a
number
of
TUC
Congresses.
Something
of
the
grassroots
support
enjoyed
by
the
League
can
be
gauged
by
a
report
of
a
conference
held
by
the
League
in
Wales
in
1928.
There
were
148
delegates
present,
of
which
33
were
from
miners
lodges,
25
from
womens
co-op
guilds,
and
20
from
Trades
Councils
and
Labour
Party's.
At
a
time
when
support
for
colonialism
was
strong,
even
amongst
organised
sections
of
the
working
class,
the
Workers
Welfare
League
of
India,
strongly
influenced
by
Saklatvala's
united
front
approach,
made
some
headway
in
breaking
down
barriers
between
the
British
and
Indian
Labour
movements.
It
was
this
same
strategy
of
uniting
the
working
class
movements
in
the
imperialist
countries,
with
the
national
liberation
movements
in
the
colonies,
that
was
to
inspire
the
formation
of
the
League
Against
Imperialism.
Although
the
League
was
not
only
solely
with
British
colonialism
Saklatvala
was
to
play
a
prominent
role.
Formed
in
1927,
the
League
drew
together
many
of
the
national
liberation
movements
in
the
colonial
and
semi-colonial
countries.
At
its
founding
Congress
in
Brussels
in
February
1927,
there
were
175
delegates
from
37
countries.
The
organisations
represented
included,
the
National
Revolutionary
Army
of
China,
the
Chinese
Trade
Union
Congress,
the
Kuomintang,
the
Indian
National
Congress,
the
Egyptian
Nationalist
Party,
the
South
African
Trade
Union
Congress,
the
Nationalist
movement
of
Indonesia,
and
the
African
Committee
for
the
defence
of
the
Negro
race.
In
addition,
there
were
delegates
from
the
Labour
movements
of
the
imperialist
countries.
Britain
was
represented
by
a
delegation
consisting
of
Labour
and
Communist
Party
stalwarts.
These
included
Harry
Pollitt,
Arthur
McManus,
Helen
Crawfurd,
Fenner
Brockway,
S.O.Davies,
and
George
Lansbury.
Saklatvala,
who
was
visiting
India
at
the
time
of
the
Congress,
was
not
present,
but
he
was
elected
to
the
League's
Executive
Committee
later
in
the
year.
Like
the
Workers
Welfare
League
before
it,
the
League
against
Imperialism
attempted
to
raise
the
issue
of
colonialism
within
the
Labour
movement.
Although
the
onset
of
the
new
line
by
1929,
make
Labour
Communist
unity
within
the
League
difficult,
particularly
at
national
level,
this
did
not
deny
that
in
the
early
days
the
League
made
a
serious
attempt
to
influence
the
thinking
of
Britain's
organised
working
class.
At
the
League's
first
National
Conference
in
Britain
in
July
1928,
there
were
343
delegates
representing
over
50
trade
unions
and
12
co-operative
guilds.
Later
in
the
year
the
League,
in
a
gesture
of
international
solidarity,
decided
to
support
the
boycott
of
the
Simon
Commission
by
the
Indian
National
Congress.
The
Simon
Commission
was
a
committee
of
enquiry
which
was
to
go
to
Indian
to
investigate
conditions.
The
League
organised
a
number
of
public
events
exposing
the
Commission,
and
arguing
the
Congress's
case.
A
very
successful
meeting
took
place
in
Limehouse
in
east
London.
Limehouse
was
the
Labour
leader
Clement
Atlee's
constituency.
Atlee
had
been
appointed
to
the
commission
and
despite
protests
had
declined
to
withdraw.
Saklatvala
spoke
at
the
meeting,
and
so
to
did
representatives
of
the
Indian
National
Congress.
It
was
a
practical
example
of
the
kind
of
joint
activity
and
mutual
assistance
between
Britain
and
India,
that
Saklatvala
had
spent
his
life
in
trying
to
build.
Saklatvala
was
a
committed
supporter
of
the
League.
His
committment
led
to
his
arrest
and
brief
interment
at
Ostend,
while
journeying
to
the
League's
Cologne
Conference
in
1929.
He,
along
with
the
Labour
MP
James
Maxton,
the
Reginald
Bridgeman,
were
apprehended
on
the
grounds
that,
their
papers
were
not
in
order.
After
protests
they
were
later
released
and
allowed
to
continue
their
journey.
The
incident
illustrates
the
inadequacies
of
the
intelligence
services
operating
at
the
time.
Not
only
did
the
Belgium
authorities,
presumably
acting
at
the
behest
of
their
British
counterparts,
think
that
the
League
Conference
was
taking
place
in
Belgium,
they
also
thought
that
both
Maxton
and
Bridgeman
were
also
Communist
MPs.
Even
the
`Daily
Chronicle'
could
not
resist
the
headline.
`Someone
blunders
in
Belgium'.
The
paper
pointed
out
that
Bridgeman
was
in
fact
not
a
Communist
MP,
but
the
Labour
candidate
for
Uxbridge.
At
the
6th
Congress
of
the
Communist
International
in
July
1928
there
was
an
attempt
to
wind
up
the
League
which
was
defeated.
Some
months
before
Saklatvala
had
reiterated
his
own
support
for
the
organisation.
Addressing
the
League's
Executive
Committee
he
said,
"the
League
was
something
definite
in
the
minds
of
the
coloured
peoples.
Their
hopes
in
it
had
been
aroused
and
it
would
be
wrong
to
disappoint
them."
Even
during
the
height
of
the
class
against
class
period
Saklatvala
still
maintained
his
committment
to
a
united
anti-colonial
alliance.
He
wanted
the
League
to
be,
"a
broad
organisation
in
which
there
is
and
must
be
room
for
all
sincere
anti-imperialist
fighters
without
regard
to
their
party
affiliation,
but
that
it
is
an
indispensable
condition
of
membership
that
the
struggle
against
imperialism
shall
really
be
carried
on
actively
and
uncompromisingly".
In
the
field
of
national
and
international
politics
Saklatvala
was
committed
to
the
forging
of
links
between
the
organised
Labour
movement
in
Britain
and
the
forces
of
national
liberation
in
the
colonies.
He
was
also
concerned
with
the
exposure
of
colonialism
to
wider
audience.
As
an
MP
he
was
in
an
ideal
position
to
achieve
both
these
objectives.
he
made
a
widely
publicise
visit
to
India
in
1927
which
succeeded
in
satisfying
these
twin
aims.
His
stay
in
India
lasted
three
months
and
was
so
successful
that
on
his
return
the
British
Government
denied
him
any
future
access
to
the
country
of
his
birth.
It
was
a
decision
that
was
upheld
even
by
the
1929-31
Labour
Government.
During
the
visit
he
was
given
the
freedom
of
a
number
of
Indian
cities,
and
granted
an
official
welcome
by
the
Madras
and
Calcutta
City
authorities.
He
met
and
entered
into
a
dialogue
with
Gandhi,
about
the
future
direction
of
the
national
movement
in
India.
In
addition,
in
the
cities
and
towns
that
he
visited
he
made
contact
with
the
nascent
communist
groups
that
had
recently
been
established.
The
Communist
Party
considered
the
tour
a
great
success
and
it
was
referred
to
at
the
CPGBs
9th
Congress
in
October
1927.
"Saklatvala
toured
India
on
behalf
of
the
party
during
the
first
months
of
1927
getting
a
magnificent
reception
everywhere,
and
advocating
in
particular
that
the
national
movement
should
adopt
a
programme
of
demands
for
the
workers
and
peasants.
His
controversy
with
M.K.Gandhi
over
the
question
of
an
independent
class
organisation
for
the
workers
received
wide
publicity.
His
visit
undoubtedly
did
much
to
stimulate
the
movement
for
an
All
India
Workers
and
Peasants
Party,
a
highly
important
field
of
activity
for
Indian
Communists.
No
doubt
it
was
owning
to
this
that
the
Indian
government
has
now
cancelled
comrade
Saklatvala's
right
to
return
to
his
native
land".
While
in
India
Saklatvala
met
Phil
Spratt
and
George
Allison,
both
members
of
the
CPGB
who
had
been
sent
by
the
party
to
work
under
cover,
and
to
help
organise
the
Indian
Trade
Union
movement.
Soon
after
Saklatvala's
visit
Allison
was
deported
back
to
England.
In
1928
he
was
replaced
by
Ben
Bradley,
who
continued
with
the
organising
work
within
the
Indian
labour
movement.
Two
years
after
the
visit
Bradley,
Spratt
and
thirty
one
other
active
trade
unionists
were
arrested.
There
were
tried
at
Meerut
in
front
of
an
English
civil
servant,
and
after
four
years
deliberation,
the
prisoners
were
given
sentences
of
between
three
years,
and
transportation
for
life.
The
Meerut
Conspiracy
Trial
received
wide
publicity,
and
because
of
the
indignation
it
aroused,
the
sentences
were
later
reduced,
and
some
of
the
prisoners
released.
When
Ben
Bradley,
whose
ten
year
sentence
was
commuted,
returned
to
England
in
1933,
he
was
met
at
Victoria
Station
by
Saklatvala
on
behalf
of
the
CPGB.
That
the
trial
was
necessary
at
all
is
in
part
due
to
the
work
of
Saklatvala,
and
the
CPGB,
in
helping
develop
the
Indian
Labour
movement.
Saklatvala's
anti-imperialist
activity
also
highlights
the
difference
in
approach
between
the
Communist
International
and
the
Communist
Party
of
Great
Britain,
towards
the
forces
for
national
liberation.
Under
the
influence
of
M.N.Roy,
the
Communist
International
adopted
a
far
less
conciliatory
approach
to
the
national
bourgeoisie
in
the
colonies
than
the
British
party.
There
was
a
profound
animosity
between
Roy
and
Saklatvala.
They
fundamentally
disagreed
over
anti-imperialist
strategy,
and
in
this
struggle
Roy
was
supported
by
the
CI,
and
Saklatvala
by
the
CPGB.
These
differences
between
Roy
and
his
wife
Evelyn,
and
Saklatvala,
were
particularly
marked
over
their
respective
assessments
of
Gandhi.
Roy
in
his
`Memoirs'
makes
clear
his
early
opposition
to
Gandhi
as
a
reactionary.
It
was
view
shared
by
Evelyn
Roy,
who
was
a
powerful
influence
in
the
CI
in
her
own
right.
Writing
for
`Labour
Monthly'
in
1923,
she
declared
that
in
the
struggle
for
national
liberation,
"Mr
Gandhi
definitely
allied
himself
on
the
side
of
the
bourgeoisie
.....
in
the
development
of
the
Indian
Revolutionary
Movement.
Mr
Gandhi
must
be
counted
among
the
counter
revolutionaries".
It
was
not
a
view
shared
by
Saklatvala
and
the
CPGB.
In
a
message
to
the
founding
congress
of
the
Communist
Party
of
India
in
1925,
Saklatvala
made
clear
his
own,
and
his
party's
committment,
to
the
building
of
a
broad
anti-colonial
alliance,
as
the
way
to
win
self
determination,
"I
must
ask
you
to
remember
that
although
the
economic
independence
of
the
workers
and
peasants
of
India
is
your
main
task,
that
you
still
remain
friendly
to
the
National
organisations
of
the
Indian
peoples,
as
National
independence
is
the
birthright
of
all
peoples".
While
the
Roys
may
have
believed
that
Gandhi
was
firmly
in
the
camp
of
counter
revolution,
Saklatvala
looked
upon
him
as
an
important
national
figure
who
was
well
worth
cultivating.
So
much
so,
that
on
his
visit
to
India,
he
made
clear
that
an
important
part
of
his
trip
was
to
make
contact
with
Gandhi.
He
was
even
prepared
to
reorganise
his
schedule
in
order
to
meet
and
discuss
with
the
Congress
leader.
His
dialogue
with
Gandhi
was
reported
in
full
in
the
Indian
press,
and
later
published
as
a
pamphlet
by
the
CPGB,
entitled,
`Is
India
Different?'
Saklatvala's
antagonism
towards
Roy
and
his
policies
first
became
apparent
in
1923.
The
Communist
International
had
decided
to
establish
an
Indian
Labour
bureau.
After
an
initial
meeting
in
Berlin
with
representatives
of
the
British
party,
it
was
decided
to
try
and
illicite
Saklatvala's
support
for
the
project.
However,
Saklatvala
was
reluctant
to
associate
himself
with
the
scheme
because
of
Roy's
involvement.
According
to
reports
this
was
because
of
his
mistrust
of
Roy.
Further
evidence
of
this
suspicion
is
revealed
two
years
later
at
a
Colonial
Conference
in
Amsterdam,
called
by
the
Communist
International.
Saklatvala,
who
although
absent
from
the
conference,
made
it
know
that
he
was
totally
opposed
to
working
with
some
of
Roy's
associates.
Roy
in
turn
accused
Saklatvala
of
`spy
mania'.
The
Conference
further
revealed
that
these
differences
also
effected
those
working
inside
the
Indian
Labour
movement.
Roy's
wife
Evelyn
had
attempted
to
contact
Chaman
Lal,
the
Indian
labour
leader
in
Paris,
but
had
been
told
that
he
was
a
friend
of
Saklatvala
and
that
Lal
and
Saklatvala
were
opposed
to
her,
or
having
anything
to
do
with
her.
Saklatvala's
work
in
the
anti-imperialist
movement
reveals
the
tremendous
committment
by
communists
to
colonial
freedom.
It
should
be
remembered
that
in
Britain,
during
the
period
of
Saklatvala's
activity,
the
overwhelming
consensus
was
in
favour
of
colonialism.
The
two
Labour
Governments
of
1924
and
1929
made
no
attempt
to
upset
the
colonial
balance,
and
nothing
was
done
to
grant
India
its
independence.
The
Meerut
Conspiracy
Trial,
begun
in
1930,
continued
during
the
period
of
the
Second
Labour
Government,
with
no
attempt
by
that
Government
to
bring
it
to
a
halt.
Although
the
parties
of
the
left
were
committed
to
an
ending
of
colonial
rule,
many,
even
activists
within
the
organised
labour
movement,
supported
the
ideas
of
white
superiority
which
underpinned
the
colonial
system.
Saklatvala's
activities,
particularly
at
international
level,
also
cast
doubts
on
the
accepted
wisdom
that
the
world
communist
movement
had
a
uniform
strategy
towards
colonial
freedom,
and
who
should
be
supported
in
that
fight.
This
may
have
been
the
case
after
the
Communist
International's
6th
Congress
in
1928,
but
until
that
time
there
were
certainly
major
differences,
between
Saklatvala
and
the
CIs
leading
spokesperson
in
India,
M
N
Roy.
Saklatvala's
approach
towards
the
anti
colonial
fight
was
to
try
and
unite
the
Labour
movement
in
Britain,
with
the
forces
for
national
liberation
in
the
colonies.
His
assessment
of
who
those
forces
were
may
have
altered,
which
it
did
between
1928
and
1935.
During
that
period
Saklatvala
and
the
CPGB
looked
upon
Gandhi
and
the
Indian
National
Congress
as
allies
of
imperialism.
But
even
during
the
class
against
class
years
Saklatvala's
strategy
was
still
to
try
to
build
a
united
front
between
British
and
colonial
workers.
The
same
kind
of
perspective,
of
international
working
class
unity,
was
adopted
by
Saklatvala
in
relation
to
the
fight
against
racism
in
Britain.
After
its
poor
start,
the
CPGB,
by
the
time
of
its
Seventh
Congress
in
1925,
recognised
that
racism
did
exist,
and
was
affecting
even
sections
of
the
organised
labour
movement.
The
Congress
Resolution
called
on
every
party
member
to,
"actively
take
up
the
fight
against
the
imperialist
prejudices
still
existing
amongst
large
sections
of
the
working
class
in
Britain".
Saklatvala
had
suffered
racism
at
first
hand
during
his
years
in
India.
During
a
debate
in
the
House
of
Commons
in
1923,
he
gives
a
vivid
description
of
an
unforgettable
experience
he
had
at
the
hands
of
the
British
authorities
at
the
turn
of
the
century.
"If
I
may
be
permitted
just
to
give
something
from
my
memory
of
a
personal
character
in
this
matter.
In
1902
a
plague
was
having
devastating
effects
all
over
India.
It
was
to
be
taken
in
hand
not
merely
as
a
grave
problem,
but
as
something
to
save
human
lives.
There
was
a
Professor
Haffkin
in
those
days
who
was
the
first
man
who
with
some
measure
of
success
gave
out
an
anti-plague
serum
for
inoculation.
His
experiments
were
being
conducted
on
a
large
scale.
I
was
then
associated
as
secretary
with
an
important
committee
of
welfare
work.
The
Governor
of
Bombay,
who
was
then
himself
staying
out
of
Bombay,
immediately
sent
a
telegram
to
Professor
Haffkin
to
go
to
him
with
certain
facts
and
figures
at
my
disposal,
I
was
prevented
from
entering
the
white
man's
club.
Ultimately,
when
it
could
not
be
helped,
the
messenger
of
the
club
after
telephoning
to
various
government
officials
took
me
to
the
back
yard
of
the
club,
led
me
through
the
kitchen,
and
an
underground
passage
to
a
basement
room,
where
the
Professor
was
asked
to
see
me
because
I
was
not
a
white
man.
That
happened
twenty
five
years
ago."
Saklatvala
spent
the
first
thirty
years
of
his
life
in
India.
He
knew
what
colonialism
ment
and
the
racism
that
it
involved.
It
was
why
he
was
so
attracted
by
the
Russian
Revolution.
The
Bolsheviks
not
only
proclaimed
their
allegiance
to
socialism,
they
also
demanded
the
rights
of
nations
to
self
determination.
For
Saklatvala
the
Russian
Revolution
not
only
succeeded
in
overthrowing
capitalism,
it
also
smashed
the
Russian
empire.
It
personified
the
two
beliefs
he
had
by
now
come
to
cherish.
The
success
of
the
Bolsheviks
had
been
welcomed
by
many
in
the
British
labour
movement
and
not
just
by
the
left.
In
the
South
London
borough
of
Batteresa
support
for
the
revolution
was
particularly
strong.
Many
activists
joined
the
newly
formed
Communist
Party
of
Great
Britain,
including
a
number
of
Labour
councillors.
Saklatvala
was
adopted
as
the
parliamentary
candidate
for
Batteresa
North
by
the
Batteresa
Labour
Party
and
Trades
Council,
in
June
1921.
He
had
just
resigned
from
the
Independent
Labour
Party,
and
had
joined
the
Communist
Party.
At
that
time
it
was
possible
to
be
both
a
member
of
the
Communist
Party
and
the
Labour
Party
at
the
same
time.
There
were
no
bans
on
joint
membership
until
1925.
Given
the
record
of
the
Batteresa
Labour
Movement
since
the
formation
of
the
Trades
Council
in
1894,
Saklatvala
was
not
an
unsurprising
choice
as
their
candidate.
Organised
Labour
in
Batteresa
was
both
militantly
socialist
and
anti-imperialist.
Saklatvala
was
know
to
a
number
of
activists
on
the
Batteresa
Trades
Council.
He
was
also
friendly
with
the
previous
Labour
candidate,
Charlotte
Despard,
who
had
just
retired
to
Ireland.
Like
Saklatvala,
Despard
was
a
determined
anti-imperialist.
Her
main
concern
was
Ireland,
which
was
looked
upon
by
the
Labour
movement
as
a
colonial
possession.
The
demands
for
colonial
liberation
usually
coupled
Ireland
and
India
together.
Over
the
years
the
Batteresa
Labour
movement
had
established
for
itself
quite
a
reputation
for
international
solidarity.
At
the
time
of
the
Boer
War,
the
Batteresa
Borough
Council,
which
was
controlled
by
the
Trades
Council
in
alliance
with
the
Liberals,
had
proclaimed
it
opposition
to
the
conflict.
Along
with
the
Trades
Council
it
had
helped
establish
a
Stop
the
War
committee
which
organised
demonstrations
and
meetings
in
support
of
the
Boers.
One
of
the
roads
in
the
Borough
was
named
after
a
Boer
General.
Collections
were
made
on
behalf
of
the
Boers
and
on
one
occasion
Boer
speakers
addressed
a
crowd
of
over
1400
at
Batteresa
Town
Hall.
Yet
it
was
an
internationalism
that
was
itself
tainted
with
racism.
At
a
Council
meeting
in
February
1903
the
Council
were
asked
to
support
a
scheme
for
the
establishment
of
a
General
Military
Hospital
for
20,000
sick
soldiers.
The
scheme
was
condemned
by
one
councillor
as,
`militarism
gone
mad',
and
the
Council
refused
to
cooperate.
In
the
discussion
one
of
the
pro-Boer
councillors
said,
"the
Council
would
not
help
the
Government
to
fight
Boers
or
anyone
else
for
the
sake
of
the
Jews
of
Park
Lane".
Anti
semitism,
which
gave
rise
to
the
Aliens
Act
in
1905,
was
widespread
and
influenced
even
those
who
were
anti-imperialist.
A
decade
after
the
ending
of
the
Boer
War,
Batteresa
again
showed
its
opposition
to
colonialism,
by
electing
T.
Brogan
as
its
Mayor.
Brogan
was
an
Irish
nationalist,
and
the
President
of
the
Batteresa
branch
of
the
United
Irish
League
of
Great
Britain.
He
had
been
a
progressive
councillor
for
a
number
of
years.
He
was
described
as,
"London's
first
Irish
Catholic
nationalist
Mayor".
The
Mayoralty
election
of
the
following
year
1913,
caused
an
even
bigger
sensation.
In
that
year
John
Archer,
a
Labour
councillor,
was
elected
the
Mayor
of
the
Borough.
Archer,
who
was
of
mixed
parentage,
described
himself
as
a
`man
of
colour'.
He
was
born
in
Liverpool.
His
father
was
from
Trinidad,
and
his
mother
was
Irish.
There
was
a
good
deal
of
speculation
in
the
press
proceeding
his
election
as
to
whether
he
would
be
elected,
but
he
was
supported
by
the
ruling
Progressive
Alliance
who
were
in
the
majority
on
the
Council.
He
was
their
nomination,
and
he
was
the
Mayor
of
the
Borough
when
the
First
World
War
broke
out.
One
Progressive
councillor
in
reply
to
a
reporter
who
suggested
that
Archer
may
not
be
elected
because
of
his
colour
responded,
"we
do
not
recognise
any
colour
prejudices
in
Batteresa".
It
was
a
response
that
was
largely
true,
even
a
decade
later
despite
a
massive
press
campaign
Saklatvala's
support
amongst
the
Batteresa
Labour
movement
remained
solid.
It
was
not
until
the
implementation
of
the
notorious
1924
Labour
Party
Conference
resolution,
banning
communists
from
membership,
that
support
began
to
wane.
For
its
continued
support
for
Saklatvala,
the
Batteresa
Labour
Party
and
Trades
Council
was
disaffiliated
in
1926,
and
a
few
months
later
an
official
Labour
party
and
Trades
Council
was
established.
There
was
rivalry
between
the
two
organisations
for
a
period,
but
by
the
time
of
the
1929
General
Election
the
old
Trades
Council
existed
in
name
only.
In
1927
Stephen
Sanders,
a
long
time
activist
in
the
Batteresa
Labour
movement,
was
adopted
as
the
official
Labour
candidate,
and
this
effectively
spelt
the
death
knell
of
Saklatvala's
reign.
He
lost
the
seat
in
1929,
and
his
vote
declined
even
further
at
the
election
of
1931.
By
the
time
of
the
next
General
Election
in
1935,
in
line
with
the
Communist
Party's
new
strategy
he
urged
his
supporters
in
the
constituency
to
vote
Labour.
What
is
significant
is
that
for
five
years,
from
Saklatvala's
initial
adoption
until
1926,
there
was
no
challenge
to
his
candidacy
from
within
the
local
Labour
movement.
When
a
challenged
did
come,
it
was
in
response
to
national
influences,
and
not
local
politics,
and
had
nothing
whatsoever
to
do
with
Saklatvala's
racial
origin.
At
his
original
adoption
meeting,
in
June
1921,
according
to
the
Secretary
of
the
Batteresa
Labour
Party,
he
was
selected
by
an
overwhelming
majority.
At
the
following
two
elections
of
1923
and
1924,
before
which
he
was
re-selected,
there
was
no
challenge
to
his
candidature
from
within
the
local
party.
It
could
be
argued
that
Saklatvala
presented
himself
to
the
Labour
movement
in
Batteresa
as
just
another
radical
socialist
--
but
that
was
not
the
case.
He
never
denied
his
racial
origins,
and
consistent
with
his
view
of
building
unity
between
British
and
Indian
workers
he
never
forewent
an
opportunity
of
trying
to
cement
that
unity.
Soon
after
his
adoption
as
Labour
candidate,
he
addressed
a
meeting
of
Indians
at
Caxton
Hall
at
which
his
main
theme
was
the
common
interests
of
Indian
and
British
workers.
The
meeting
expressed
its
confidence
in
Saklatvala,
and
congratulated
the
Batteresa
Labour
Party
on
its,
"broadminded
policy
of
adopting
him
as
its
prospective
parliamentary
candidate".
The
meeting
further
requested
that
a
delegation
of
Indians
attend
a
meeting
of
the
local
Labour
Party
in
order
that,
"the
sentiments
of
the
Indian
people
can
be
expressed
to
the
rank
and
file
of
the
Batteresa
electors".
It
was
just
the
kind
of
initiative
that
Saklatvala
welcomed.
While
Saklatvala
enjoyed
widespread
support
amongst
the
activists
in
the
Batteresa
Labour
movement,
what
would
be
their
response
to
the
attacks
that
would
undoubtedly
be
made
on
him
during
the
campaigns?
The
evidence
suggests
that
the
claim
of
the
progressive
councillor
made
some
ten
years
before
was
indeed
true,
`Batteresa
recognises
no
colour
prejudices'.
Throughout
all
three
of
Saklatvala's
election
campaigns,
when
he
was
the
candidate
of
the
Batteresa
Trades
Council,
the
press
concentrated
their
attack,
not
on
his
Indian
origins,
but
on
his
revolutionary
politics.
The
`Daily
Telegraph'
epitomised
this
consensus
in
a
report
on
the
1924
election.
"The
contest
in
North
Batteresa
promises
to
be
one
of
the
stiffest
fights
in
the
campaign,
resolving
itself
in
fact
into
a
grim
struggle,
as
at
the
last
election,
between
Constitutional
Government
and
Communism"
Batteresa
was
referred
to
as,
"one
of
the
four
red
boroughs
in
the
Metropolis.
To
call
it
the
nerve
centre
of
Communism
would
be
no
exaggeration".
When
racism
was
used
by
the
opponents
of
Saklatvala,
it
was
to
reinforce
the
view
that
revolutionaries
were
somehow
alien
to
Britain.
During
the
1923
campaign,
Hogbin,
Saklatvala's
opponent,
fed
information
to
the
press
that
there
were
`foreign
gangs'
operating
in
the
constituency.
These
gang's
sole
aim
was
to
break
up
Hogbin's
meetings.
Initially
there
was
just
one
gang,
referred
to
by
Hogbin
as,
`Irish
rebels'
and
which
included,
`twenty
gunmen'.
The
next
day
the
newspapers
reported
that
the
gang
had
been
joined
by
another,
and
Hogbin
claimed
to
have
positive
knowledge,
"that
there
are
two
gangs
operating
in
the
division,
one
of
Irish
Republican
gunmen
and
the
another
of
continental
and
Russian
communists".
This
view
that
socialism
was
somehow
foreign
was
often
alluded
to
in
the
press.
At
the
start
of
the
1924
election
in
Batteresa,
the
Daily
Mail
set
the
tone
by
stating
that,
"attempts
are
being
made
to
make
free
speech
impossible.
Mr
Hogbin
is
denied
the
right
of
speaking
at
open
air
meetings
by
bands
of
disrupters,
in
which
a
foreign
element
is
distinctly
noticeable".
The
national
press
in
its
hostility
to
Saklatvala
concentrated
on
his
politics,
rather
than
his
colour.
When
racism
was
used,
it
was
used
to
denigrate
socialism
as
of
Russian
origin,
or
alternatively,
that
its
anti
democratic
supporters
were
linked
to
Republican
gunmen
from
across
the
Irish
sea.
The
picture
the
media
tried
to
portray
was
that
socialism
was
all
due
to
foreign
influences.
During
the
campaigns
in
Batteresa
Saklatvala's
opponent
made
little
use
of
racism.
when
there
was
an
attempt
to
attack
Saklatvala
because
of
his
racial
origins,
it
brought
a
swift
response
from
Saklatvala's
supporters.
The
occasion
was
during
the
height
of
the
1923
campaign.
There
had
been
allegations
in
nearly
all
the
national
newspapers
that
Saklatvala's
supporters
were
disrupting
his
opponent's
meetings.
In
response,
Saklatvala
issued
an
appeal
calling
for
restraint,
and
condemning
rowdyism.
He
also
made
clear
that
he
was
committed
to
democratic
participation.
The
`Daily
Herald'
reported,
"North
Batteresa's
Labour
champion
considers
it
wrong
to
hold
at
such
times
as
these,
party
meetings
to
be
addressed
by
representatives
of
one
side
only.
He
therefore
invites
Conservatives
and
Liberals
to
attend
his
meetings,
and
address
his
rallies.
He
also
asks
for
a
similar
privilege
in
return".
As
good
as
his
word,
Saklatvala,
at
one
of
his
election
rallies
at
Latchmere
Baths,
invited
along
Liberal
and
Tory
speakers.
His
Liberal
opponent,
Hogbin,
declined
to
attend
in
person
but
sent
along
his
representative,
a
Captain
Godfrey.
Godfrey
used
the
opportunity
to
make
an
attack
on
Saklatvala
that
was
racist.
After
first
praising
Saklatvala's
`splendid
sportsmanship'
for
inviting
him
to
the
meeting,
Godfrey
then
went
on
proclaim
that,
"as
a
representative
he
had,
an
distinctive
preference
for
an
Englishman".
The
response
from
Saklatvala
supporters,
according
to
the
`Daily
Herald',
was,
"sharp
and
noisy".
They
were
on
their
feet
in
protest
and
for
a
while
the
whole
meeting
was
in
uproar.
Undeterred
Godrey
continued
in
a
similar
tone,
and
alluded
to
Saklatvala's,
"eastern
mentality".
It
was
only
Saklatvala's
intervention
and
appeal
for
calm
that
allowed
Godfrey
to
be
heard.
Incidents
of
this
kind
do
show
that
Saklatvala's
active
supporters,
those
that
would
attend
his
meetings,
were
not
prepared
to
see
their
candidate
subjected
to
racist
slurs.
Saklatvala
for
his
part
used
the
meeting
to
further
denounce
nationalism
and
called
for
the
unity
of
all
workers.
Saklatvala's
appeals
for
unity,
however,
stretched
only
as
far
as
India,
Ireland
or
Egypt.
In
his
election
address
of
that
year,
his
anti
colonialism
was
restricted
to
those
three
countries.
He
told
the
voters
of
Batteresa
that
he
stood
for,
"an
immediate
transformation
of
the
imperial
relations
of
England
with
Ireland,
Egypt
and
India".
No
mention
was
made
of
Britain's
other
colonies.
Either
consciously
or
unconsciously
Saklatvala,
like
many
on
the
left
at
that
time,
seemed
to
neglect
the
aspirations
of
the
African
liberation
movements.
Did
he
too
subscribe
to
the
view
that
those
countries
were
not
yet
ready
for
independence?
If
he
did,
then
it
would
reinforce
the
view
expressed
by
the
Communist
Party
that
many
living
in
Britain
were
prone
to
imperialist
prejudices.
Because
Saklatvala
was
Indian
it
did
not
follow
that
he
was
immune
from
such
attitudes.
There
is
compelling
evidence
that
his
contemporary
in
Batteresa,
the
mixed
race
John
Archer,
was
undoubtedly
influenced
by
chauvinism.
Archer
had
been
subjected
to
racist
slurs
when
elected
mayor
in
1913.
He
had
fought
back
against
these
attacks,
and
in
this
he
had
been
supported
by
Batteresa's
Labour
movement.
Towards
the
end
of
his
reign
as
Mayor
came
the
outbreak
of
the
First
World
War.
This
was
to
prove
a
testing
time
for
all
those
opposed
to
nationalism,
and
Archer,
like
so
many
others
when
the
drums
rolled
and
the
flags
flew,
rallied
to
the
supposed
patriotic
cause.
At
a
Towns
Meeting
in
Batteresa,
called
soon
after
the
war
began,
he
called
it,
"a
just
war".
He
accused
the
Germans
of
being
`savages',
and
demanded
their
suppression.
He
told
the
audience,
"members
of
the
German
nation
had
already
descended
to
a
lower
level
than
the
savages
of
bygone
days
.....
and
this
country
would
not
stop
until
the
German
sway
was
for
ever
removed
from
the
civilised
world."
He
went
on
to
applaud
the
Empire
and
Britain's
greatness.
"All
people
in
the
Empire
were
coming
forth
to
fight
under
the
British
flag
and
when
they
did
the
Germans
would
know
something
about
it".
He
concluded
with
an
appeal
for
all
those
present
to
join
the
army,
and
sat
down
to
a
rapturous
applause
from
a
largely
pro-war
audience.
John
Archer,
non
white
and
Pan
Arficanist
was
certainly
no
paragon
of
anti-racism.
Although
initially
Archer
and
Saklatvala
worked
together
in
the
Batteresa
Labour
Party
and
Trades
Council,
when
the
split
came
over
the
admissibility
of
communists,
they
were
on
different
sides.
Archer
supported
the
communists
expulsion,
and
when
an
official
Trades
and
Labour
Council
was
established
in
July
1926,
Archer
became
the
first
secretary
of
the
North
Batteresa
Divisional
Labour
Party.
He
campaigned
against
the
old
Trades
Council
which
still
included
communists,
and
championed
Stephen
Sanders,
Saklatvala's
Labour
rival
at
the
1929
General
Election.
Although
Saklatvala
and
Archer
were
non
whites
operating
in
an
overwhelmingly
white
Labour
movement,
their
careers
in
the
1920s
illustrate
that
politics
and
not
race
was
the
determining
factor
when
it
came
to
allegences.
Saklatvala's
anti-colonial
activity
between
1921
and
1928
was
concerned
with
three
issues.
The
exposure
of
the
cruelty
of
colonial
rule,
particularly
in
India,
to
the
workers
of
Britain.
The
development
of
a
Communist
movement
in
India,
and
the
creating
of
links
between
the
Labour
movement
in
Britain
and
the
Indian
National
Congress.
He
used
his
position
as
an
MP
to
continually
raise
conditions
in
the
sub
continent
in
the
House
of
Commons.
So
much
so
that
he
was
referred
to
in
the
press
as
the
MP
for
India.
It
was
Saklatvala
that
suggested
that
the
Congress
leader,
Nehru,
be
invited
to
address
Parliament.
In
his
work
in
the
Communist
Party
Saklatvala
was
used
as
a
link
person
between
India's
developing
Communist
movement
and
the
British
Party.
He
was
held
in
high
esteem
both
in
the
CPGB
and
the
Communist
International
for
his
knowledge
both
of
India
and
its
National
Liberation
movement.
That
did
not
prevent
him
from
having
a
critical
attitude
towards
the
Communist
International's
anti-colonial
strategy,
or
from
being
sceptical
of
the
CIs
leading
spokesperson
on
India,
M
N
Roy.
His
heretical
views
almost
led
to
his
expulsion
from
the
Party
in
1928.It
was
only
because
of
the
CPGBs
resilience
to
Communist
International
pressure
that
he
maintained
his
membership.
Saklatvala also faced other pressures during this period. They were described by his secretary, Reg Bishop, in an obituary in the Daily Worker. "For the first year or two after his election as the MP for Batteresa North, there were many who tried to get him to break from the Communist Party. The Undersecretaryship of State for India was the smallest of inducements held out if he would only be more orthodox in his politics". But Saklatvala refused to conform and was to remain a thorn in the side of the establishment long after his parliamentary career had finished. His activities both as a communist and as an anti-imperialist have left their mark, and the strategies he pursued are still argued about sixty years later.