
When a call for Indian independence echoed in London
In this multi-part series, we look at some of the lesser-known Indian independence movements beyond the border. The first, this story explores the role of the Indian diaspora in early 20th-century London and their contribution to the freedom struggle.
'Whether as flesh and blood or as commodities, Indians shaped the peripheries of London since Shakespeare,' academic Arup K Chatterjee writes in Indians in London: From the Birth of the East India Company to Independent India (2020).
But when did the earliest Indians arrive in Britain? And how closely were they connected to the cause of Indian independence? While much has been said and documented about the Indians who spearheaded the freedom struggle in the subcontinent, here's a look at those who led independence movements in Britain.
Among the earliest Indians to move to Britain were groups of domestic servants (particularly ayahs) and lascars (ex-sailors). According to Chatterjee, 'An audit from 1855, conducted by Lieutenant Colonel R.M. Hughes of the East India Company, suggested that there were about 12,000 Indians, Chinese and Australian seamen in the employ of British merchant services.'
While no official survey was conducted until 1932, historian Harald Fischer-Tiné estimates in Shyamji Krishnavarma: Sanskrit, Sociology and Anti-Imperialism (2014) that there were at most 200 Indian students in Britain in 1890. By 1910, notes Chatterjee, the strength of the student body crossed 700.
In 1932, the Indian National Congress initiated a survey and found a community of 7,200 Indians settled in Britain. However, Chatterjee argues that the absence of ethnic minorities from the list implies that the numbers were likely greater. In the decade of the 1930s, for instance, Indian students accounted for 87 per cent of all colonial students in Britain. Chatterjee notes, 'Back in the mid-19th century, 'tens of thousands of Indian seamen, servants, scholars, soldiers, students, envoys, royalty officials, merchants, tourists and settlers had all journeyed to Britain'.
From the mid-nineteenth century, the educated class from India arrived in England for higher education and employment. Barristers Gyanendra Mohan Tagore, Michael Madhusudan Dutt, and Womesh Chunder Bonnerjee were among those who arrived in the 1860s. Cursetji Maneckji Shroff from Bombay became the first Indian to pursue his undergraduate studies at the University of Oxford in 1864. Also part of the educated class was Sarojini Naidu, better known as the Nightingale of India, who studied at King's College between 1895 to 1898. Around the same time, Cornelia Sorabji enrolled to study law at the University of Oxford.
Through debating societies such as the Oxbridge Majlis circles, these English-educated Indians came in contact with nationalists such as Aurobindo Ghosh, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, M K Gandhi, and others. The meetings fostered discussion and political participation in the nationalist movement among the diaspora.
Chatterjee explains that since the 1890s, 'the Cambridge Majlis and the Oxford Majlis had been the greenhouses for preparing university graduates for political debates on issues of electoral equality, democracy and fighting British imperialism'.
Swami Vivekananda, after attending the World Parliament of Religions in the United States in 1895, visited London for three months. During his stay, he delivered multiple lectures across the city and in universities such as Oxford, preaching the cause of Indian independence.
'Indian nationalists resolved to 'flood Great Britain with pamphlets, leaflets, newspapers and magazine articles.' In 1888, 10,000 copies of the report of the annual meeting of the Indian National Congress were disseminated across Britain. The next year, the journal called India was founded in London, which continued to be published until 1921,' finds Chatterjee.
Among the many institutions that showcased the role of the Indian diaspora in the cause of freedom was India House. It was founded by Shyamji Krishnavarma, an assistant to a Sanskrit professor in Oxford, at Highgate in London. Through the India House, Tiné argues, '…Krishnavarma specifically targeted the ever-growing South Asian student community in the Uk…[reflecting] his conviction that Indian independence could only be achieved under the leadership of a small intelligentsia educated abroad.'
'In its early months, India House was widely considered to be a thrifty residential home and Hindustani restaurant catering to Indian students in the city. Secretly, however, it operated as a hub of Indian revolutionaries, and often as a stopover for rebel recruits from India for their journeys to or from Paris or America,' notes Chatterjee.
Among its activities was the publication of an anti-colonial magazine under the title, The Indian Sociologist. Its purpose, according to Chatterjee, was to warn its English readership that they could ''never succeed in being a nation of freemen…so long as they continue to send members of the dominant classes to exercise despotism in Britain's name upon the conquered races'.' Activist Bhikaji Rustomji Cama was also closely associated with India House.
The next was the London Muslim League. Established by Syed Ameer Ali in collaboration with S H Bilgrami in 1908, the League was created to advocate for the rights of Muslims in England and elsewhere, independent of its parent wing, the All India Muslim League (1906).
Meanwhile, influenced by Shapurji Saklatvala, a member of the Independent Labour Party, V K Krishna Menon arrived in England in 1924 and graduated with an MSc from the London School of Economics a decade later. In his youth, spent in Madras, Menon had joined Annie Besant's Home Rule for India League to fight for Indian independence, inspired by the Irish Home Rule movement. The organisation was later renamed the Commonwealth of India League. At this point, Besant resigned and left the League under Menon's leadership.
Chatterjee notes that in 1929, the word 'Commonwealth' was dropped, making it the India League. 'Over that decade, the India League would set up offices in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Coventry and Wales, as well as a branch office in America, attended by Indian students, trade unionists, members of cooperative societies and many university and political elites,' finds Chatterjee.
The branches aimed to advocate for gender equality, civil liberty, and freedom from colonial rule. In 1941, the India League also launched a campaign against the imprisonment of Jawaharlal Nehru and other Congressmen.
Also deserving mention is Mulk Raj Anand, an Indian writer in London. He quietly followed the activities of the India League and eventually formed the All India Progressive Writers Association. 'The surreptitious ceremony was lined up in the backroom of the Nanking Restaurant on Denmark Street, where Mulk Raj Anand, Sajjad Zaheer and Jyotirmaya drafted the manifesto of the Association,' Chatterjee told indianexpress.com. They hoped to address, through the written word, issues of poverty, illiteracy, and caste that plagued India.
With the 'Quit India' call in 1942, several other Indian organisations sprang up in London. Among them was the Committee of Indian Congressmen, founded by Amiya Bose, a nephew of Subhas Chandra Bose.
'Restaurateuring in the city,' said Chatterjee, 'was conceived as a close cousin of the incendiary spirits of nationalism. Most of these restaurants were run by lascars from the Sylhet district of Bengal, who, after 1971 would be known as Bangladeshis.' Among the ones mentioned in his book are Shah Jolal Restaurant, at 76 Commercial Street in the East End owned by lascar Master Ayub Ali. The space, opened in 1920, was a meeting place for members of the India League.
Another was an Indian restaurant and lodging house for Indians: The Hindustan Community House, managed by Kundan Lal Jalie since 1937. 'Inter alia, it also provided free medical services by Indian doctors, and functioned as a cultural centre stocked with English and Indian newspapers, besides the services of a radio and a gramophone,' explains Chatterjee. Another meeting spot of the League was Shah Abdul Majid Qureshi's India Centre, built on Charlotte Street in 1944.
Despite the many efforts, the Indian diaspora struggled to yield results. They failed at forging meaningful solidarity with Indians back home. Chatterjee remarked in his interview, 'Indians did not perceive Indians in London in a very positive light, apart from, let's say, Madam Bhikaji Cama.'
'V K Krishna Menon can be said to be a mouthpiece of Indian interests in London at the time, but the India League and the Indian diaspora fell short of resonance, barring these influential individuals and organisations. I have no evidence of Indians being particularly involved in collaboration with Indians in London,' he explained.
Readings:
Indians in London: From the Birth of the East India Company to Independent India by Arup K. Chatterjee
Shyamji Krishnavarma: Sanskrit, Sociology and Anti-Imperialism by Harald Fischer-Tiné
Ayahs, Lascars and Princes: The Story of Indians in Britain 1700-1947 by Rozina Visram
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hans India
29 minutes ago
- Hans India
Bihar's electoral overhaul: Balancing integrity and inclusion in India's democracy
The Election Commission of India's (ECI) recent initiative to undertake a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar has ignited a fervent debate, blending legal imperatives with political undercurrents. Announced in June, this comprehensive exercise, the first of its kind in the state since 2003, aims to update voter lists with July 1, 2025, as the qualifying date. With Bihar's Assembly elections looming later this year, the timing has amplified concerns about potential disenfranchisement, particularly among migrant workers and marginalized communities. Yet, at its core, the SIR represents a statutory effort to safeguard the sanctity of India's democratic process—one that demands a balanced scrutiny of its legal foundations, procedural rigor, and societal impacts. The ECI's authority to conduct such revisions is firmly rooted in the Constitution. Article 324 grants the Commission sweeping powers over the 'superintendence, direction, and control' of elections, including the preparation and maintenance of accurate electoral rolls. This is reinforced by Article 326, which enshrines universal adult suffrage, entitling every Indian citizen aged 18 or above—barring disqualifications like non-residence or criminal convictions—to vote. These provisions underscore a commitment to inclusivity while empowering the ECI to eliminate inaccuracies that could undermine electoral fairness. Parliament has translated these constitutional ideals into actionable law through the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Section 21 of the Act explicitly authorizes the ECI to prepare and revise electoral rolls, a process elaborated in the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Under Rule 25, revisions can be intensive, summary, or hybrid, allowing flexibility based on need. An intensive revision, as chosen for Bihar, involves meticulous steps outlined in Rules 4 to 23, including door-to-door enumeration and verification. This ensures thoroughness, requiring enumerators to collect details from households and cross-check against a list of 11 specified documents, such as passports, driving licenses, or ration cards—expanded from seven in previous exercises, which the Supreme Court has noted as a 'voter-friendly' measure. The rationale for reviving an intensive approach after over two decades is straightforward yet profound. Bihar's population has surged, with urbanisation and migration reshaping its demographics. The 2003 revision, the last comprehensive one, predates significant shifts, including the exodus of millions for work opportunities elsewhere. Bogus entries—deceased voters, duplicates, or those who have relocated—persist as a perennial threat, potentially distorting outcomes and violating the 'one person, one vote' principle. The ECI's drive seeks to purge these anomalies while enrolling new voters, especially the youth turning 18. As of July 12, over 74 per cent of Bihar's approximately 7.9 crore electors had submitted enumeration forms, indicating robust participation in the process. This high response rate suggests the exercise is gaining traction, though challenges remain in reaching remote or transient populations. However, SIR has not escaped controversy. Critics, including civil society groups, allege it risks mass exclusion, with reports emerging of draft rolls containing errors like incorrect photographs or entries for deceased individuals. Petitions before the Supreme Court, led by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), claim that around 65 lakh names were omitted from the draft roll without adequate justification, disproportionately affecting migrants, the poor, and minorities. These groups argue that the process violates statutory rights, as voters have a legal entitlement to remain on rolls unless proven ineligible. The exclusion of Aadhaar as a verification document has been praised for broadening options but questioned for its potential to complicate verification in a state where digital access varies. In response, the ECI has emphasised that SIR is a routine purification effort, not a deletion drive. It has assured the Supreme Court that no name will be removed without prior notice, a reasoned order, and appeal rights. The Commission maintains that it is not legally obligated to publish a separate list of excluded voters or reasons for omissions, viewing the draft roll as a provisional document open to corrections. During ongoing hearings, the apex court has sought details on the 2003 revision's methodology, signalling a desire for transparency in historical precedents. Notably, while individual voters have filed thousands of objections, no recognized political party has formally flagged errors in the draft, per ECI reports. This absence of partisan complaints underscores that the controversy may stem more from apprehension than widespread malpractice. The debate extends beyond Bihar, highlighting systemic tensions in India's electoral framework. Similar revisions in other states, like Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in recent years, have faced scrutiny for alleged biases, yet they have ultimately bolstered roll accuracy. The political stakes are high in Bihar: the state's 243 Assembly seats could see shifts if migrant voters—estimated at over two crore—are underrepresented. Demographic data from the 2011 Census, adjusted for growth, reveals that Scheduled Castes and Muslims, often economically vulnerable, form significant voter blocs; any perceived exclusion could erode trust in the system. Objectively, the ECI's actions align with global best practices for electoral hygiene. Countries like the United States and the United Kingdom periodically purge rolls to combat fraud, though with safeguards against voter suppression. In India, the ECI's recent delisting of 334 Registered Unrecognized Political Parties (RUPPs) as part of broader clean-up efforts reflects a proactive stance against electoral malpractices. However, implementation on the ground matters. House-to-house surveys, while thorough, can be susceptible to human error or bias in a polarized environment. Enhancing digital tools, such as the Voter Helpline app, could mitigate this, allowing self-verification and reducing dependency on enumerators. The Supreme Court's observations in related matters offer valuable guidance. In the ADR vs. ECI case on electronic voting machines, the court cautioned against 'blind distrust' that breeds scepticism, urging evidence-based reforms and trust-building through dialogue and transparency. As echoed in Paragraph 37 of that judgment, democracy thrives on harmony among citizens, judiciary, representatives, and electoral bodies. Para 38 expresses hope that the system will reflect the electorate's true mandate. These principles apply aptly here: while the ECI's authority to decide the timing and mode of SIR is exclusive, fostering public confidence requires proactive disclosure and inclusive outreach. Bihar's SIR embodies the delicate balance between electoral purity and inclusivity. Legally sound and procedurally robust, it addresses long-standing flaws in voter lists, yet its success hinges on equitable execution. As petitions unfold in the Supreme Court, stakeholders must prioritize evidence over rhetoric. A transparent, participatory process will not only fortify Bihar's upcoming polls but also reinforce India's democratic resilience. By embracing continuous improvement, as the apex court advocates, we can ensure every eligible voice is heard, unmarred by doubt or exclusion. (The writer is a senior Advocate)


Hans India
29 minutes ago
- Hans India
PM Modi raises pitch for ‘Samriddh Bharat'
New Delhi: Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday gave a clarion call for making a "Samriddh Bharat" by becoming self reliant in fields ranging from fighter jet engines to energy and Artificial Intelligence, as he announced a task force for next generation reforms, GST changes as big gift for Diwali, and a state-of-the art defence shield dubbed "sudarshan chakra." Modi's consecutive 12th Independence Day speech was focused on the theme of "aatmanirbharta" (self-reliance) at a time India and the world is facing growing US protectionism, as he highlighted the rising global selfish interest. "We should not waste our energy on shortening the line of any country. We have to make our line longer with full energy. The world will acknowledge our mettle if we can do it. (kisi doosre ki lakeer chhoti karne ke liye apni urja hamein nahin khapaani hai. Hamein poori urja ke saath hamari lakeer ko lamba karaa hai. Hum agar apni lakeer lambi karate hain to duniya bhi hamara loha manegi.)," Modi said in his 103-minute address from the ramparts of Red Fort on the country's 79th Independence Day. Citing his 25 years of experience as the head of a government, he said, "If we choose this path, then no selfish interest will ever be able to entrap us." Modi's longest Independence Day address for any prime minister was peppered with several announcements, including a national deep water exploration mission for self-reliance in energy and a high-powered demography mission to deal with the "serious crisis" of demographic changes effected by infiltrators. His sweeping call for "swadeshi" (Made in India), self-reliance and innovation in a gamut of sectors, including semiconductors, social media, fertiliser and pharma, came amid a strain in the country's ties with the US, with President Donald Trump doubling tariffs on Indian imports to a whopping 50 per cent after singling out India for purchase of Russian oil to pressure it on trade. Sporting a saffron turban, Modi, however, made no direct reference to the issue as he doubled down on his emphasis on self-reliance and "swadeshi". The task force on reforms will make time-bound recommendations for adapting India to become developed by 2047, he said. "It is the call of the hour that we need not fret in the times of crisis but should work to improve our abilities and accomplishments," he said. Indian manufacturers' mantra should be "daam kam, dum jyada" (less price, better quality), he added. India can do it, he said noting that toy producers have begun exporting after he had in a 'Mann ki Baat' episode called for boosting domestic production and the need for stopping their import. The prime minister likened his call for "Samriddh Bharat" (prosperous India) to the freedom fighters' goal of "Swatantra Bharat" (independent India).


Indian Express
29 minutes ago
- Indian Express
From pigeons to dogs and cows: how animals have sparked unrest in Mumbai
In recent days, pigeons have emerged as unexpected players in Maharashtra's political discourse, triggering controversy that has pitted sections of the Jain and Marathi communities against each other. What began as a dispute over bird feeding has escalated into a flashpoint, drawing in leaders across the political spectrum and heating up the state's polity. However, this isn't the first time animals have catalysed socio-political turmoil in Mumbai. From pigeons to dogs to cows, animal-related issues have a long and often overlooked history of inciting public unrest and communal agitation in the city. A riot over dogs In June 1832, Bombay, as the city was known then, witnessed one of its earliest recorded civil disturbances, sparked not by taxation or colonial policy, but by a dog-culling drive. The British colonial government had enacted a law in 1813 authorising the culling of stray, ownerless dogs between April 15 and May 15, and September 15 and October 15. However, in 1832, the government extended the culling period until June 15, citing a surge in stray dog numbers. 'The diligence with which the cull was effected in 1832 excited attention. Special police dog-killers were paid the sum of eight annas for dispatching each dog. The dogs were either taken away and killed, or killed in the street and left as garbage… Many of the dogs captured, however, were neither dangerous nor loose, but snatched from private enclosures,' Jesse S Palsetta writes in her paper Mad Dogs and Parsis: The Bombay Dog Riots of 1832. This aggressive enforcement coincided with a Parsi holy day and the Islamic month of Muharram. The Parsis, who regard dogs as sacred, were outraged by the indiscriminate killing. The payment incentive led to abuse, with dogs being seized even from private homes and sacred spaces. On June 6, violence broke out in Bombay's Fort area. 'In consequence of a Government order for the destruction of pariah-dogs… Two European constables, stimulated by the reward of eight annas for every dog destroyed, were killing one in the proximity of a house, when they were attacked and severely handled by a mob composed of Parsis and Hindus of several sects,' S M Edwardes writes in The Bombay City Police: A Historical Sketch. Following this, shops shut down in protest and crowds gathered at the police station, demanding an end to the killings. Tensions escalated the next day. On June 7, as a citywide strike was enforced, shops and markets shut, Fort access was blocked, and the public harassed British officials. Supply lines to British garrisons were disrupted; carriages carrying British elites, including the Chief Justice, were attacked, and even water supplies were obstructed. By midday, a crowd of 5,000 people assembled near the Fort's Central Police Station, forcing the British administration to read the Riot Act and deploy British troops to quell the trouble. The protest was forcibly dispersed, and several arrests followed. While casualties were limited, the political significance of the unrest was immense. The Parsi-led protest, backed by Hindu Vanias, Jains, and Ismaili Muslims, showcased the economic leverage of Bombay's trading communities, who managed to paralyse the city's supply chains and challenge colonial authority. Cows and communal flashpoints Over 60 years later, it was the issue of cow protection that pushed Bombay to the brink of communal violence in 1893. In the years leading up to the unrest, anti-cow slaughter sentiment was steadily building. The Bombay Gaurakshak Sabha had been actively organising rallies and disseminating pamphlets highlighting the sanctity of cows. R H Vincent, Bombay's then police commissioner, said, 'A large number of pictures and pamphlets showcasing the sanctity of the cow and the ills of cow slaughter were distributed in Bombay.' Public mobilisations became increasingly visible. In 1891, cows were paraded through city streets in processions. Protests even erupted over incidents where cows accidentally fell into roadside ditches and died, underscoring the heightened religious sensitivity surrounding bovine deaths. These tensions culminated in communal riots that broke out on August 11, 1893, and violence surged for three days and simmered for nearly a month. Eighty-one people were killed, and 700 were injured before calm was restored.