13 March 1937: British activist Agatha Harrison on progress in India

From our correspondence.

Agatha Harrison was a Quaker, welfare activist and pacifist who worked closely with Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian League towards Indian independence. She acted as an intermediary for Gandhi while he was on hunger strike, and was the first academic tutor in Industrial Welfare at the London School of Economics. When she died suddenly in 1954, Krishna Menon – India’s first post-independence High Commissioner to London – said: “She had no office or title, and no flags were lowered for her, but all over India people honour her name.”

13 March 1937

The Situation in India

SIR, I have just returned from India, where I had the opportunity of being on the spot while the elections were taking place. The editorial comment in your issue of March 6th—that “the meaning of the Indian provincial elections has not yet begun to dawn on public opinion” here—is all too true.

You rightly say that the recent elections in which Congress has secured such striking results are a “plebiscite” on the new Constitution. With a majority in six out of the eleven provinces, and forming the largest single party in another three, Congress must be reckoned with seriously. When Mr Gandhi came to the second Round Table Conference in 1931 he was ridiculed, and ever since the range of this party has been belittled, and attention focused on its diversity rather than on its unity. So, in this country, we face the present situation ill-prepared; knowing little of the history of the growth and scope of the movement; almost nothing of its leaders, save Mr Gandhi and Mr Nehru.

In the third week of March Mr Nehru, the President, has summoned a meeting in Delhi of the All India Congress Committee to consider the question of office acceptance. In preparation for this, “reasoned recommendations” have been called for from local, district and provincial Congress committees “outlining the course of action to be taken up by Congress members of the legislatures to further our policy of rejection of the Act as a whole and to impede further development of the federal scheme.” Once again, attention here tends to be diverted from the main issue and concentrated instead in forecasting possible spilts “that may occur when the meeting takes place. Surely this time would be better spent in studying the basis on which these men and women have been returned to power.

On April 1st the Government of India will inaugurate the India Act. On the same day Congress has called a nationwide hartal, or general strike, “in order to demonstrate effectively the will of the Indian people to resist the imposition of the unwanted constitution…” The Government of India and the Congress are faced with a grave position; one that calls for great qualities of statesmanship on both sides; and for men and women in this country to be watchful and informed.

Agatha Harrison.

A snow-laden Gandhi in Union Square, New York. Photo: Getty Images.

Letters, articles and notes from the New Statesman's centenary archive.

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: The chaos and mendacity of Trump’s White House

That General Flynn was the first of the president’s men to fall should perhaps not have caused surprise.

In his inauguration speech on 20 January, Donald Trump used the phrase “American carnage” to ­describe the state of the US under Barack Obama. The description was correct, but President Trump had the timing wrong – for the carnage was still to come. Just a few weeks into his presidency, the real-estate billionaire and reality-TV star has become embroiled in more controversy and scandals than Mr Obama experienced in eight years. His ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries entering the US caused chaos at airports both at home and abroad and damaged America’s global standing. It was a false claim that the executive order, since suspended by the courts, would make the US safer. By alienating and stigmatising Muslims, it may well do the opposite.

The decision to pursue the policy so recklessly and hastily demonstrates Mr Trump’s appalling judgement and dubious temperament. It also shows the malign anti-Islamic influence of those closest to him, in particular his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, his senior adviser Stephen Miller, and Michael Flynn, the retired general who on 13 February resigned as ­national security adviser after only 24 days in the job.

That General Flynn was the first of the president’s men to fall should perhaps not have caused surprise, given his reputation for anger and arrogance. As recently as August, the retired three-star general said that Islamism was a “vicious cancer inside the body of 1.7 billion people” and falsely claimed that Florida Democrats had voted to impose sharia law at state and local level. He also led the chants of “Lock her up!” aimed at Hillary Clinton during the Republican ­National Convention, which would have been appreciated by Mr Trump then and today by those who enjoy irony.

Now General Flynn is under investigation by justice officials. He resigned over revelations in the media, most notably the Washington Post, that before taking office he had discussed US sanctions against Moscow with the Russian ambassador. It is unlawful for private citizens of the US to ­interfere in diplomatic disputes with another country.

Before standing down, General Flynn had publicly denied talking about sanctions during calls and texts with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in late December. He had also issued misleading accounts of their conversation to Vice-President Mike Pence and other Trump officials who went on to defend him. Given President Trump’s propensity to lie, General Flynn may have believed that he could get away it. As the former chief of a Pentagon spy agency, however, he should have known that the truth would come out.

The FBI had wiretaps of the ambassador’s conversations with General Flynn. In January, the acting US attorney general – later sacked by President Trump for opposing his “Muslim ban” – informed the White House that General Flynn had lied about his communications with the ambassador and was potentially vulnerable to Russian blackmail. Yet it took newspaper revelations about the intercepts to bring the national security adviser down. American carnage, indeed.

The disruptive present

How has capitalism shaped the way we work, play and eat – and even our sense of identity? Nine writers explore the cutting edge of cultural change in the latest instalment of our New Times series in this week's magazine.

The past decades have brought enormous changes to our lives. Facebook became open to the public in 2006, the first iPhone was launched in June 2007 and Netflix launched in the UK in 2012. More and more of us are ceaselessly “on”, answering emails at night or watching video clips on the move; social media encourages us to perform a brighter, shinier version of ourselves. In a world of abundance, we have moved from valuing ownership to treating our beliefs as trophies. The sexual vocabulary and habits of a generation have been shaped by online pornography – and by one company, MindGeek, in particular. We cook less but love cookery shows. We worry about “fake news” as numbers of journalists decline. We have become gender consumers, treating it as another form of self-expression. These shifts in human behaviour have consequences for politics and politicians. “The question should always be,” as Stuart Hall wrote in 1988, “where is the ‘leading edge’ [of change] and in what direction is it pointing?” The question is even more apposite today.

This article first appeared in the 16 February 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The New Times