The
Marxist
Volume: 13, No. 01
Jan-March 1996
Shapurji Saklatvala : From Capitalism to Communism
(Extract From the Making of the Black Working Class in Britain)
Saklatvala
played
a
glorious
role
as
one
of
the
pioneers
of
the
international
working
class
movement.
If,
as
Lenin
said,
`Capital
is
an
international
force.
Its
defeat
requires
an
international
brotherhood',
then
Saklatvala
symbolised
such
an
international
brotherhood
of
workers.
R.
Palme
Dutt
recognised
him
as
a
heroic
figure
who
fought
on
many
fronts:
for
international
communism,
for
Indian
national
liberation
and
for
the
causes
of
the
British
working
class
movement.
Indeed,
he
became
the
first
Indian
to
be
accepted
and
loved
by
British
workers.
His
development
from
capitalism
to
Communism
reflects
a
spiritual
odyssey.
From
a
wealthy
family
background,
he
was
able
to
make
a
passionate
commitment
towards
finding
a
means
to
end
the
poverty
and
misery
of
the
masses
in
India.
As
he
told
Palme
Dutt,
there
were
four
stages
in
this
spiritual
odyssey.
First
he
sought
in
religion
the
key
that
would
unlock
the
door
to
a
new
awakening
and
advance
of
the
nation.
He
realised,
however,
that
instead
of
providing
a
solution,
religion
led
only
to
passivity
and
a
sanctifying
of
the
existing
unacceptable
order
of
society.
Second,
he
turned
to
science
as
a
means
of
helping
the
Indian
people.
After
years
of
scientific
studies
(and
having
been
an
active
welfare
worker
in
the
plague
hospitals
and
slums
of
Bombay)
he
found
that
science
alone
offered
no
solution
unless
it
was
applied
in
practice
to
the
economy.
Third,
he
felt
that
in
order
to
end
Indian
poverty,
industrial
development
was
necessary.
This
led
to
the
establishment
of
the
Tata
iron
and
steel
industry
in
India.
Soon,
however,
his
open
advocacy
of
Indian
national
liberation
ran
afoul
of
the
authorities.
Consequently,
the
Tata
firm
sent
him
to
Britain
as
their
departmental
manager.
Finally,
to
climax
his
spiritual
pilgrimage,
he
entered
the
world
of
the
National
Liberal
Club,
but
quickly
found
among
its
members
a
narrow
outlook
and
snobbish
hypocrisy.
After
confrontation
with
Morley,
then
Secretary
of
State
for
India,
he
gravitated
towards
British
working
class
politics.
Saklatvala
was
born
on
28
March
1874
in
Bombay.
Since
the
1830s
the
Saklatvala
family
was
a
well-known
parsee
family
in
Bombay.
He
was
intensely
sensitive
to
human
suffering.
Thus,
in
spite
of
being
born
with
`a
silver
spoon
in
his
mouth'
he
moved
inevitably
towards
the
working
masses
and
a
radical
ideology.
After
leaving
college,
he
was
devoted
to
industry
and
was
instrumental
in
setting
up
the
Tata
Iron
and
Steel
works
under
the
guidance
of
his
maternal
uncle,
J.N.
Tata.
During
this
time,
there
was
rising
national
consciousness
in
India.
The
Indian
National
Congress,
already
established
in
1855,
sought
British
goodwill
in
order
to
redress
Indian
grievances.
Saklatvala's
interest
in
politics
which
brought
him
in
conflict
with
the
British
authorities,
embarrassed
the
Tatas.
To
forestall
growing
militant
nationalism
in
Bengal
and
elsewhere
in
India,
British
force
became
more
repressive.
After
this
transitional
period
in
Indian
politics,
Saklatvala
began
his
political
life
in
England.
He
interestingly
moved
from
being
a
Liberal
(believing
in
British
goodwill)
to
an
`arch-enemy'
of
British
imperialism.
Indeed,
he
bravely
held
on
to
this
uncompromising
commitment
and
attacked
imperialism
`in
the
heart
of
its
stronghold'.
After
a
brief
spell
of
work
in
the
Tata's
Manchester
office,
he
came
to
London
where
his
especially
concerned
family
made
him
a
life-member
of
the
National
Liberal
Club.
This
concern
was
essentially
that
Saklatvala
would
become
`respectable'
by
meeting
`friends'
of
Indian
freedom.
Among
those
whom
he
met
was
Lord
Morley
of
the
Morley-Minto
Reforms
of
1909
(which
arrived
`to
rally
the
moderates'
in
the
face
of
militant
nationalism)
that
contributed
towards
the
division
of
Indian
nationalism
along
communal
lines
through
the
introduction
of
separate
Hindu
and
Muslim
electorates.
Saklatvala
saw
this
division
and
its
implications
clearly
and
did
not
deviate
from
his
argument,
which
was
further
strengthened
by
his
familiarity
with
Liberal
bankruptcy
and
hypocrisy
concerning
the
true
interests
of
the
Indians.
An
argument
with
`Honest
Jack'
Morley,
resulted
in
Saklatvala's
resignation
and
his
departure
from
the
liberal
`mausoleum'.
In
1910
he
entered
British
working
class
politics
through
the
Independent
Labour
Party.
Involvement
in
the
ILP
proved
an
unsatisfactory
experience.
Saklatvala
was
disappointed
by
the
Party's
gradual
shift
from
being
Marxist
to
anti-Marxist.
He
was
in
fact
in
search
of
a
group
of
true
internationalists.
Narrow
nationalism
was
redundant;
he
sought
support
for
the
national
liberation
movement
in
India.
Thus,
the
ILP
was
found
wanting
in
that
(though
championing
the
cause
of
British
workers)
it
did
not
attack
the
cause
of
capitalist
exploitation
and
failed
to
link
the
British
working
class
with
the
international
working-class
movement.
To
Saklatvala,
India's
oppression
was
clearly
linked
to
British
capitalists
and
their
exploitation
through
British
imperialism.
This
belief
received
a
filip
in
1917
when
the
Russian
Revolution
stirred
his
imagination
and
pointed
to
the
possibilities.
According
to
one
biographer,
he
saw
this
as
the
precursor
to
`a
new
civilisation
--
a
new
social
order'
which
would,
in
the
end,
bring
liberation
to
the
exploited
millions
living
under
the
heels
of
capitalism
and
imperialism.
Alerted
to
the
dangers
of
the
Russian
Revolution
and
its
effect
on
working
class
and
colonial
national
liberation
movements,
predictably
the
British
imperialists
used
every
means
to
discredit
it.
But
in
the
wave
of
anti-Soviet
propaganda,
Saklatvala
and
others
tried
to
present
the
other
side
of
the
story
before
the
British
public.
He
consolidated
his
position
in
1918
by
joining
the
People's
Russian
Information
Bureau,
which
spread
the
message
of
the
Russian
Revolution.
At
the
war's
end,
the
Russian
Revolution
had
the
beneficial
effect
of
engendering
hope
in
British
and
colonial
liberation
movements.
Indeed,
colonial
working-class
movements
became
more
assertive,
leading
to
widespread
disturbances
in
1919.
These
colonial
developments
were
not
lost
on
Lenin
who
formed
the
Third
International
in
1919.
Saklatvala's
response
was
that
the
ILP
should
be
affiliated
to
the
Third
International
to
work
towards
the
unity
of
the
workers
of
the
world.
This
proposal
was
not
accepted
by
the
ILP.
Frustrated,
Saklatvala
moved
irrevocably
towards
the
ideals
of
the
Communist
Party,
which
he
joined
in
1921.
To
his
lasting
credit,
he
remained
a
Party
member
to
his
death.
Three
years
after
the
Russian
Revolution,
the
Communist
Party
of
Great
Britain
was
founded
at
a
time
of
growing
militant
activities
in
the
trade
union
movement.
The
central
political
struggle
during
this
new
era
of
militant
working
class
struggle
in
Britain
was
support
for
the
new
Russian
Republic.
Thus,
the
Hands
Off
Russia
Committee
established
in
Britain
in
the
spring
of
1919
inaugurated
a
campaign
against
British
intervention.
Moreover,
in
April
1919,
the
Trades
Union
Congress
and
the
Labour
Party
at
a
joint
conference
called
for
the
withdrawal
of
British
troops
from
Russia.
Further,
the
British
government's
ultimatum
to
the
Soviet
Union
resulted
in
radical
elements
in
the
British
working
class
threatening
a
general
strike.
Both
the
Amritsar
Massacre
and
suppression
of
the
Egyptian
national
liberation
movement
drew
protest
from
the
young
Communist
Party
and
from
the
Labour
Left.
In
the
CP
Saklatvala
found
what
he
was
looking
for:
an
organisation
which
took
a
strong
stand
on
international
solidarity
on
national
liberation
and
for
ending
exploitation.
According
to
one
observer,
it
is
no
exaggeration
to
claim
that
Saklatvala
was
a
product
of
the
British
working-class
movement.
Indeed,
his
devotion
to
this
movement
was
undoubted.
Historically,
this
international
aspect
of
working-class
unity
was
a
continuing
theme
of
the
British
working
class
movement.
In
the
struggle
for
the
reform
of
Parliament,
the
London
Workingmen's
Association
was
formed
`to
secure
political
rights
for
the
workers
after
the
failure
to
win
working-class
representation
in
1832'.
In
fact,
it
was
this
organisation
which
in
1838
produced
the
People's
Charter,
which
in
turn
became
the
rallying
point
for
a
revolutionary
movement
which,
at
the
outset,
recognised
the
working-class
struggle
as
an
international
one.
Soon
after
Saklatvala
came
to
England,
he
took
an
interest
in
the
trade
union
movement.
After
joining
the
CP
he
became
a
keen
and
active
trade
union
member.
This
involvement
was
noted
by
the
Daily
Worker:
`Night
after
night,
year
after
year,
in
all
parts
of
Britain
he
carried
out
his
task
of
working
class
agitation,
education
and
organisation.
No
comrade
ever
did
more
of
his
work
so
uncomplainingly
as
comrade
Saklatvala
.....
No
call
was
ever
made
upon
(him)
to
which
he
did
not
respond.
In
spite
of
bad
health,
a
`dicky'
heart,
he
displayed
unusual
vitality.
This
unselfish
commitment
was
observed
by
both
organisers
and
workers.
He
cared
about
reaching
the
workers,
travelling
widely
on
speaking
tours
and
sleeping
rough
`even
on
the
floor
of
the
corridor
in
a
crowded
train
--
certainly
never
in
a
first
class
sleeper'.
Soon
this
dedication
brought
him
deserved
recognition
from
British
workers.
This
was
evident
when
Saklatvala
was
able
to
draw
a
crowd
of
1500
people,
while
one
of
the
Blackshirt
`stars'
spoke
to
a
`small
audience'.
In
fact,
as
soon
as
Saklatvala
began
speaking,
the
small
crowd
deserted
the
Fascist
and
turned
to
listen
to
the
Communist.
Saklatvala's
involvement
in
the
trade
union
movement
had
deepened
over
the
years,
forming
the
essential
base
of
his
politics.
Indeed,
he
was
not
only
an
active
member
of
the
Central
Workers'
Union,
he
also
joined
the
Clerks'
Union
and
the
Co-operative
Union.
Moreover,
he
was
elected
as
a
delegate
by
the
Trades
Union
Congress
of
India
to
represent
them
at
various
trade
union
congresses
in
England.
His
popularity
among
rank
and
file
workers
had
grown
enormously.
In
the
General
Election
of
October
1922
he
contested
the
seat
of
Battersea
North.
His
candidature
aroused
much
debate
and
discussion.
Eventually,
however,
he
received
the
support
of
the
Battersea
Trades
and
Labour
Council,
and
the
endorsement
of
the
Labour
Party
NEC.
It
was
agreed
that
Saklatvala
should
run
as
a
Labour
candidate.
Indeed,
he
pledged
himself
publicly
to
support
the
Labour
Party's
Constitution
and
policy.
In
his
election
address,
he
wrote:
In
spite
of
desperate
and
ludicrous
efforts
on
the
part
of
Liberals
and
Tories
alike
to
split
the
Working
Class
Movement
into
hostile
fragments,
THE
LABOUR
PARTY
IS
TODAY
THE
ONLY
PARTY
IN
GREAT
BRITAIN
THAT
STANDS
SOLIDLY
TOGETHER.
The
scare-cry
of
`Communist'
which
is
sure
to
be
raised
by
eleventh-hour
leaflets
will
fortunately
not
frighten
the
electors
of
North
Battersea......
This
statement
is
understandable,
given
the
fact
that
those
were
the
years
when
the
CP
was
trying
to
obtain
affiliation
to
the
Labour
Party.
In
fact,
at
this
time,
Saklatvala's
statements
and
general
attitude
towards
the
Labour
Party
were
fundamentally
in
line
with
Communist
Party
policy.
During
this
campaign
he
found
in
Mrs
Charlotte
Despard
a
most
active
supporter.
Saklatvala
won
the
seat
by
a
clear
majority
of
2000
votes
but
lost
it
in
the
November
1923
Election,
by
a
narrow
margin.
In
the
interval
between
the
1923
election
and
that
of
1924,
which
brought
the
first
minority
Labour
Government
to
an
end,
the
Labour
Conference
of
October
1924
banned
Communists
from
standing
as
Labour
candidates,
and
excluded
individual
Communists
from
Labour
Party
membership.
Saklatvala,
who
had
attended
this
conference
as
the
St
Pancras
Labour
Party
delegate
was,
in
effect,
forced
to
contest
the
Battersea
North
seat
as
a
Communist
candidate
in
1924.
With
the
overwhelming
support
of
the
Battersea
North
LP,
he
narrowly
defeated
his
Liberal
opponent
to
win
the
seat
in
the
Zinoviev
Letter
election.
During
both
terms
as
an
MP,
Saklatvala
worked
closely
with
the
left-wing
Scottish
ILP
members.
With
his
broad
outlook,
he
emphasised
the
connection
between
the
workers'
struggle
in
different
parts
of
the
Empire.
Naturally,
he
was
concerned
with
the
problems
of
colonial
workers
and
peasants,
particularly
those
in
India.
There
were
two
organisations
in
Britain
which
provided
connections
between
the
British
Labour
movement
and
India.
There
was,
of
course,
Annie
Besant's
Home
Rule
League.
Towards
the
close
of
the
First
World
War,
the
League
had
aroused
support
for
its
aims
among
ILP
branches
and
trades
councils
in
Yorkshire,
South
Wales
and
in
some
of
the
larger
industrial
towns.
Although
Saklatvala
was
a
member
of
the
Home
Rule
League,
he
sought
to
fill
another
need
by
forming
the
Workers'
Welfare
League
in
1916.
Its
original
aim,
to
work
with
Indian
seamen
in
London,
was
broadened
to
include
matters
affecting
the
working
conditions
of
all
groups
of
Indian
workers.
Moreover,
when
the
All-India
Trades
Union
Congress
(AITUC)
was
established
in
1921,
the
Workers'
Welfare
League
became
its
agent
in
Britain.
Apart
from
Saklatvala,
among
the
WWL's
leading
members
during
its
early
years,
were
Arthur
Pugh
(until
about
1924)
J.
Potter
Wilson
and
George
Lansbury.
Predictably,
given
Saklatvala's
political
perspective,
by
the
mid-1920s
the
WWL
was
identified
with
the
Communists
and
the
Left
generally.
After
the
political
rupture
of
the
1926
General
Strike,
the
League's
shift
to
the
left
was
viewed
with
considerable
hostility
by
both
the
Labour
Party
leadership
and
the
TUC
General
Council.
If
Saklatvala's
activities
in
Britain
were
monitored,
thereafter,
he
was
closely
watched.
Apart
from
being
a
black
Communist
MP
in
Britain,
his
political
career
had
always
been
controversial.
However,
he
remained
undeterred
in
his
passion
to
end
oppression.
During
this
turbulent
period,
he
played
a
full
part
in
the
many
industrial
and
political
disputes.
As
an
outsider,
he
was
the
perfect
scapegoat.
In
October
1921,
his
home
was
searched;
in
1925,
although
appointed
a
member
of
the
British
delegation
to
the
Inter-parliamentary
Union
Congress
in
Washington,
the
American
Secretary
of
State
revoked
his
visa;
and
on
the
first
day
of
the
General
Strike
(4
May
1926)
he
was
arrested
and
charged
with
sedition
for
a
speech
he
made
on
May
Day
urging
the
Army
not
to
fire
on
the
people.
Forty
years
later,
a
Sunday
Times
writer
described
Saklatvala
as
one
of
the
instigators
of
the
General
Strike.
In
the
face
of
this
onslaught,
he
remained
unbowed.
He
refused
to
be
bound
over
and
was
sentenced
to
two
months'
imprisonment,
which
was
served
in
Wormwood
Scrubs.
Moreover,
during
the
period
of
his
arrest
and
trial,
his
home
(and
those
of
other
well-known
Communists)
was
again
raided.
These
experiences
seemed
to
have
strengthened
Saklatvala's
resolve.
After
his
release
he
continued
to
be
active
by
addressing
meetings
on
behalf
of
the
locked-out
miners.
His
imprisonment
in
Britain
served
only
to
heighten
the
struggle
of
workers
elsewhere
in
the
Empire.
Since
he
settled
in
England,
he
had
been
back
to
India
three
times:
in
1912-13
(a
family
visit),
in
1913-14
by
himself;
and
finally
(after
some
difficulty
in
getting
permission
to
enter
the
country)
he
arrived
in
Bombay
on
14
January
1927.
On
his
third
visit,
he
received
a
hero's
welcome
from
most
sections
of
the
Indian
nationalists.
Like
Gandhi,
he
supported
organised
labour
in
South
Africa
and
directed
attention
to
the
need
for
trade
union
and
peasant
organisations.
Moreover,
he
attended
the
AITUC
Conference
as
a
fraternal
delegate,
was
officially
welcomed
by
several
large
municipal
corporations,
and
addressed
huge
audiences.
Whilst
the
official
authorities
tried
to
divide
the
people,
he
appealed
for
communal
unity
in
the
essential
struggle
for
an
independent
India.
In
this,
he
urged
the
left
to
work
within
the
Congress
Party.
His
experience
and
involvement
with
British
working-class
politics
made
his
appeal
to
the
Indian
people
more
passionate
and
memorable.
He
was
fully
aware
of
Gandhi's
presence
and
influence.
Before
he
left
India,
he
published
an
Open
Letter
to
Gandhi
whose
policies
he
severely
criticised.
In
the
correspondence
between
them,
Gandhi's
reply
was
published
on
17
March
1927
in
the
Bombay
Daily
Mail.
More
letters
passed
between
them,
all
of
which
were
published
in
1970.
During
this
last
visit,
Saklatvala
spent
three
months
in
India.
When
he
returned
to
Britain,
India
became
a
no-go
area
--
it
was
excluded
from
the
list
of
countries
for
which
his
passport
was
valid.
He
became
so
dangerous
that
he
was
refused
entry
to
Egypt
on
his
way
to
India.
As
he
found
out,
his
real
enemies,
ironically,
were
Labour
members
such
as
Wedgwood
Benn,
Secretary
of
State
for
India
and
Arthur
Henderson,
Foreign
Secretary,
who
upheld
the
ban
on
his
entry
into
India
when
the
Labour
Party
was
returned
to
office
in
1929.
He
was
also
refused
admission
into
Belgium
in
1929,
while
on
his
way
to
attend
a
League
Against
Imperialism
meeting.
The
League
had
an
important
bearing
on
Saklatvala's
politics.
Earlier
in
February
1926,
the
League
was
founded
after
meetings
in
Berlin
and
Brussels.
Thereafter
the
organisation
became
the
League
Against
Imperialism,
with
George
Lansbury
as
Chairman.
After
his
resignation,
two
months
later,
James
Maxton
replaced
him.
Willi
Munzenburg
became
one
of
the
two
international
secretaries,
and
Jawaharlal
Nehru,
Saklatvala
and
Diego
Riviera
of
Mexico
were
members
of
the
Executive
Committee.
Reginald
Bridgeman,
the
former
British
Foreign
Office
diplomat,
was
secretary
of
the
British
section.
Clearly,
the
LAI
was
not
popular
with
the
world's
press
or
the
Indian
government
which
banned
all
its
literature.
More
witch-hunting
was
to
come.
In
January
1929,
Saklatvala,
Maxton,
Bridgeman,
A.J.
Cook
and
Alex
Gossip,
on
their
way
to
attend
a
meeting
of
the
League
in
Cologne,
arrived
in
Ostend
where
Cook
and
Gossip
were
allowed
to
continue
their
journey,
while
the
other
three
were
arrested
and
sent
back
to
Britain.
Saklatvala,
with
no
illusions,
was
right
about
the
international
conspiracy
of
capital.
Unfortunately
at
this
time,
the
political
divisions
on
the
left
had
hit
a
new
low.
Before
the
Communist
International
had
taken
a
hard
line
against
reformism
Saklatvala
had
already
been
critical
of
the
Labour
Party.
He
argued
that
since
the
Party
had
turned
itself
into
a
liberal
reformist
group,
the
CP,
given
that
it
was
the
only
anti-capitalist
party,
should
seek
trade
union
affiliations.
Moreover,
at
the
Sixth
World
Congress
of
the
Communist
International
in
the
summer
of
1928,
Saklatvala,
with
R.
Palme
Dutt
and
Harry
Pollitt,
demanded
a
radical
change
in
policy.
This
was
achieved
at
the
eleventh
Congress
held
between
November
and
December
1929
at
Leeds.
Earlier,
in
the
General
Election
of
1929,
Saklatvala
lost
his
seat
to
the
Labour
candidate,
who
polled
twice
as
many
votes.
The
following
year,
Saklatvala
stood
again
in
a
by-election
in
Shuttleston,
Glasgow,
but
lost.
In
1931,
he
again
contested
a
Battersea
seat,
but
failed
miserably,
polling
only
half
the
number
of
votes
he
had
received
in
1929.
It
was
a
sound
victory
for
the
Conservative
candidate,
and
a
reflection
that
the
political
tide
had
turned
their
way.
During
the
remaining
years
of
his
life,
Saklatvala
kept
up
a
gruelling
schedule,
speaking
at
meetings
across
the
country.
Among
others
he
was
particularly
concerned
with
unemployment,
the
central
issue
at
the
time.
Together
with
Reg
Bishop,
his
friend
and
secretary,
he
visited
the
Soviet
Union
for
the
third
time.
he
was
impressed
by
the
changes
he
had
seen
among
the
non-Russian
peoples
in
central
Asia.
A
year
later,
he
was
again
active
in
electioneering.
This
time,
he
campaigned
for
Harry
Pollitt
in
the
Rhondda,
and
Willie
Gallacher
in
West
Fife.
Indeed,
he
continued
to
address
meetings
until
two
weeks
before
his
death
from
a
heart
attack
on
16
June
1936.