Bagishwar Prasad Sinha

SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA
 SACHCHEDANANDA
SIM IA

BAGISHWAR PRASAD SINHA

PUBLICATIONS DIVISION
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
First Printed : June 1969 (Jyaistha 1891)
Reprinted: June 1980 (Asadha 1902)
Reprinted: 2003 (Saka 1925)

© Publications Division

ISBN: 81-230-1118-0

Price : Rs. 70.00

Published by the Director, Publications Division, Ministry of Information and

Broadcasting, Government of India, Patiala House, New Delhi-110 001

Sales Emporia • Publications Division

• Patiala House, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110 001. (Ph. 23387069)

• Soochna Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003. (Ph. 24367260)
• Hall No. 196, Old Secretariat, Delhi-110 054. (Ph. 23890205)
« Commerce House, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400 038.
(Ph. 22610081)
• 8, Esplanade East, Kolkata-700 069. (Ph. 22488030)
• Rajaji Bhawan, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 090. (Ph. 24917673)
• Press Road, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001. (Ph. 2330650)
• Block 4, 1st Floor, Gruhakalpa Complex, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad-500 001.
(Ph.24605383)
• 1st Floor, ‘F’ Wing, Kendriya Sadan, Koramangala, Bangalore-560 034.
(Ph. 25537244)
• Bihar State Cooperative Bank Building, Ashoka Rajpath, Patna-800 004
(Ph. 2301823)
• 27/6, Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226 001. (Ph. 2208004)
• Ambica Complex, 1st Floor, Paidi, Ahmedabad-380 007. (Ph. 26588669)
• Naujan Road, Ujan Bazar, Guwahati-781 001. (Ph. 2516792)

Sales Counters:
• C/o PIB, C.G.O. Complex. ‘A’ Wing. A.B. Road, Indore (M.P.). (Ph. 2494193)
• C/o PIB, 80, Malviya Nagar, Bhopal-462 003 (M.P.). (Ph. 2556350)
• C/o PIB, B-7/B, Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur-302 001. (Ph. 2384483)
Visit us at : http://www.publicationsdivision.nic.in
E-mail address : [email protected]
[email protected]

Typeset at : Print-O-World, 2579, Mandir Lane, Shadipur, New Delhi-110 008

Printed at: Akashdeep Printers, 20, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-2.
 CONTENTS

1 Introduction l
2 Early Life 9

3 Creator of Modem Bihar 33

4 The Jorunalist and Scholar 43

5 The Legislator 51

6 The Administrator 63

7 Return to Public Life 69

8 Champion of Education 98
9 Services to Orissa no
10 The Man 113

11 Last Days 126

APPENDIX
I A Chronology 129

n Opinions of Eminent 132

Acknowledgement 135

Index 137
 Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2018 with funding from
Public.Resource.Org

https://archive.org/details/sachchidanandasiOOsinh
 Introduction
S achchidananda Sinha—that was how he was told to spell his
name by the great oriental scholar, Professor Max Muller—was
one of the outstanding figures in the public life of India. He had
“attained eminence both at the bar and in the public life. He
distinguished himself equally in the legislatures, in the conferences,
and on the platform.”* He had won great reputation as editor of the
Hindustan Review, as a gentleman of wide culture and learning in
the truest sense of the term, and as a great social figure. “Clear¬
headed and eloquent, Dr. Sinha rarely made an enemy or lost a
ffiend”*His public services extended over a period of two generations.
A member of that noble band of Indians who, since the
nineties of the nineteenth century, had been prominently associated
with the public life of North India, and of Bihar in particular, Sinha
was truly one of the architects of modem Bihar. It was entirely
due to the strong agitation organized by him, in collaboration with
that patriot-journalist of his time, Mahesh Narain, that Bihar was
detached from Bengal and formed into a separate full fledged
administrative unit in 1912. The province has made rapid progress
in various directions as a result of this reform.
His contribution to the political awakening of India, and to
India’s fight for freedom, was also of no mean order. As an ardent
social reformer and eminent journalist, as a member of both the
Provincial and Imperial Legislative Councils, and as one promi¬
nently associated with the Congress for well over 30 years, and
also as the Finance Member in the Executive Council of the
Governor of Bihar-—the first Indian to hold that important port¬
folio—Sinha made a valuable and substantial contribution to the
social and political education of the people, and to the advance¬
ment of the country to wards, independence.
* C.Y. Chintamani.
2 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

He was a staunch nationalist, and ever since the year 1896 till
the Amritsar session, held in 1919, he was intimately associated with
the Congress and attended almost every session that was held during
that fairly long stretch of time. In fact, he had attended, as a lad
of seventeen, even the fourth session of the Congress, held at
Allahabad in 1888. For many years, he was the Secretary of the
Bihar Provincial Congress Committee, and later became its Presi¬
dent. In fact, it may be said, without any exaggeration, that during
the period of over thirty years before the adoption of the non¬
cooperation resolution, Sinha was the very life and soul of the
Congress movement in Bihar. Indeed, he was the pivot of all public
activities in the province, whether political, social or educational. As
Secretary of the Reception Committee, he had played a predominant
role in organizing the 27th session of the Indian National Congress,
held at Patna in 1912, under the presidentship of Rao Bahadur
R.N.Mudholkar, C.I.E. After this session, he had to shell out from
his pocket the substantial sum of about rupees ten thousand to meet
the deficit. He dissociated with the Congress only when it decided
to take recourse to the method of non-violent non-cooperation for
the attainment of Swarj. He was a strong beliver in constitutional
methods. Asked by Sir Hari Singh Gour, a member of the Joint
Parliamentaiy Committee on Indian Constitutional Reforms, whether
he belonged to the party of Moderate Constitutionalists (also called
the Liberal Party), he preferred to describe himself as a “Consti¬
tutional Nationalist”, and not as a “Moderate” or “Liberal”. This was
apparently because he never identified himself with any other
political party or organization, except the Congress.
Immediately after the publication of the Montagu-Chelmsford
Report in 1918, a section of the Congress, led by Surendranath
Banerjea, Tej Bahdur Sapru, C.Y. Chintamani, V.S. Srinivasa
Sastri and others, felt disappointed with the Congress attitude and
seceded from it. They formed another political party, known as
the National Liberal Federation. Surendranth sent a long telegram
to Sinha inviting him to join the new party. A similar telegram was
received by Hasan Imam also, but both he and Sinha decided to
stick to the Congress. In September 1918, Hasan Imam presided
over the special session of the Congress at Bombay. It was only
INTRODUCTION 3

after the adoption of the resolution on non-cooperation at Nagpur,

in 1920, that Sinha found it difficult to continue his active associatiion
with the Congress. Nonetheless, he claimed himself to be a
Congressman all his life. In the words of Dr. Rajendra Prasad,
he never “ceased to associate cordially with Congressmen and his
house and hospitality had always been available to them”. The
result was that almost every Congressman, who had come into
prominence as a public man during this period, was known to him,
more or less intimately and any difference in regard to the method
of work for attaining freedom had never stood in the way of their
close friendship. As a true nationalist, he fully recognized that ,
so long as the objective (namely, complete political and economic
freedom for India) remained the same, differences in regard to
the manner or method of work did not and should not matter.
He proudly recognised and appreciated the fact that but for
the immense sacrifices and sufferings of thousands and thousands
of those brave “soldiers” who fought for India’s freedom, the
millions of Indians could not have lived to see the day of India’s
independence. Only a day before his death, when a prominent
Congress leader of Bihar, Dr. Anograh Narain Sinha, called on him
and touched his feet, Dr. Sinha’s last words were : “God bless you.
I am now going, but I am thankful to Providence for granting me
the great and rare privilege of seeing fne dream of my life—
independence of India—realized, and I have the supreme satis¬
faction of finding you, Congressmen, installed in a position of
power as Ministers in the Government”. These words amply
illustrate how intensely he loved the country and yearned for her
independence.

A Powerful Speaker

In the legislature, whether on Treasury Benches or in the

Opposition, Sinha played the role of a true Indian nationalist,
always endeavouring to advance the cause of the country and
seizing every opportunity to voice the feelings and aspirations of
the people. His speeches in the Central and Provincial Legislatures
were remarkable not only for their vigour, eloquence and felicity
4 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

of expression, but also for their literary flavour and mastery in the
marshalling of facts and figures. He was generally cool and sober
in his expression and rarely used strong words, but his wit was
devastating. When provoked or excited, he showed how effective
he could be in flooring his opponent by the use of banter and
invective without being vulgar or indecent. Of him, the Leader of
Allahabad once very pertinently observed:
“He possesses considerable power of lucid expression, a
voice (capable of modulation) which he knows how to
utilise, a strong and keen sense of homour, and a great
power of ready retort—of course retort courteous—and
repartee, and an instinctive grasp to take advantage of
passing events and incidents at the psychological moment,
to say the right thing at the right place and time. These
endowments and accomplishments, coupled with a deep
knowledge of Indian public affairs, make him a most ideal
and successful debater”.
The trouncing that the Punjab officials and the officials of the
Government of India received at his hands in the Imperial Leg¬
islative Council in the course of the debate on the Punjab Indemnity
Bill 1919 was widely appreciated. In a closely reasoned speech,
he exposed the hopeless deficiency in reasoning and dignity of the
speeches of the Law and Home Members of the Government of
India. It was acknowledged by every sensible person that, in the
face of heavy odds, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya and
Sachchidananda Sinha rose to the occasion and manfully dis¬
charged their duties by the people and the country.
His success as the Finance Member of the Bihar and Orissa
Executive Council won for him the praise of many persons com¬
petent to judge his work and worth. He belied the contention of
the British administrators that no Indian Member or Minister had
the capacity to manage the finances of the Government. This was
not only acknowledged, but even proved with facts and figures by
the Indian members of the Reform Enquiry committee (better
known as the Muddiman Committee) of 1924. They unanimously
declared that Sinha’s work compared very favourably with that
of any civilian member in other provinces.
INTRODUCTION 5

It was often said that British Government in India was ‘steel

frame’ inflexible and rigid which shaped the individual associating
with it rather than allowing itself to shaped by individuals. In the
case of Sinha, however, it may well be said that the personal
element in him was potent enough to assert itself despite the
system. He was able to make himself felt in counsels of the
Government. He was not used to spoon-feeding and never allowed
himself to be influenced by the ‘demi-gods’ of the British Indian
Civil Service. Indeed, as has rightly been observed by a writer,
he was too proud to brook any such interference which he con¬
sidered as an affront to his intelligence and his sense of respon¬
sibility and public duty. He believed in being the potent and effec¬
tive head of the departments under him rather than being the
nominal head, abdicating in favour of civilian administrators.
Naturally, the Europeans in the civil services, generally not used
to subordinate their whims to an Indian, did not feel very happy
with him. But if Sinha had the courage to hold independent views
or to overrule his subordinates or to differ from his colleagues
he possessed also the capacity and wisdom to convince the
Governor of the justice of his actions or the soundness of his views.
Thus, the irritation that his independent nature caused would soon
turn into admiration. If he was not liked by the European civilians
for his independence, they nonetheless admired his readiness to
understand and appreciate their viewpoints, and to accommodate
them, as far as possible, consistent with his principles. His strong
power of perception, his grip over the local problems and aware¬
ness of popular opinion, supported by a powerful pen and a
resourceful tongue, gave him a distinct advantage over others.
Both as a member of the Executive Council and as a non¬
official, Sinha did much to project and publicise the Indian nation¬
alist point of view on issues like Dyarchy, White Paper Proposals
on Constitutional Reforms, and the Report of the Joint Parliamen¬
tary Committee. The main points that he made out were: self-
government with safeguards was a meaningless term; wider political
rights could not be bestowed by one nation on another as a largesse
or ‘bakshish’; they could be secured only by contesting every inch
of the ground with those in power.
6 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

Spirited Protest Against Simon Commission

The appointment of the Simon Commission, composed entirely
of Britishers, to the deliberate exclusion of Indians from it, called
forth from Sinha a spirited protest. In a press statement, he
objected to the procedure adopted because “the view underlying”
the appointment of the exclusive British Commission was that the
question of political progress of India is one to be determined by
the British Parliament and the British Parliament alone, and in
which, therefore, India cannot expect to have lot or part”. In the
circumstances, inspite of all his, love for constitutionalism and his
lack of faith in ‘direct action’, Sinha advised complete non-coop¬
eration with the Commission. In his opinion that was “the only
proper and dignified course open to a self-respecting people”.

Loss of Faith in the British

He was never able to reconcile himself to the Government of
India Act of 1935, as appears from the following observation made
by him in his convocation address, delivered at the Lucknow
University on November 30, 1935.
“The Conservative majority in Parliament may have acted to
the best of their judgment in framing the new constitution of India,
but if in doing so they have not kept in view the essential condition
of a successful constitution, as emphasised by General Smuts—
that of securing for the scheme devised the free consent of the
governed—then, I fear, it may be but another case of their having
sown the wind to reap the whirlwind”. Indeed, his later writings
and speeches, particularly of the period following his retirement
from the Membership of the Bihar and Orissa Executive Council,
betrayed his utter disappointment with the persistently unsympa¬
thetic attitude of the British administration, and his complete loss
of faith in British justice and fairness in the matter of grant of self-
government to India. In fact, he got impatient at the slow rate of
India’s political progress which made him observe that “it is not
for nothing that extremism has entered through the main door,
while moderation is being driven out through the window”. He
INTRODUCTION 7

wished the British Government realized that India had completely

lost faith in them and their most “unjst and unwise” policy. To those
who would point to the dangers of the free India, he would say
: “We are determined to learn by our mistakes, by our failures and
by our sufferings... We may suffer, but then ultimately we will
come out of the struggle for freedom purer and stronger as gold
heated in the crucible”. Obviously, in these lines, Sinha was giving
vent to the feeling of a true Indian nationalist who had gradually
come to lose faith in the constitutional means of agitation.
It is further made clear in the following significant passage
from an article by him reviewing C.Y. Chintamani’s book, Indian
Politics Since the Mutiny:—
“Constitutional agitation, and all that it implies and imparts,
may be an ideal method for achieving reforms in lands
under a native or an indigenous Government—one by
one’s people—but is it necessarily so in a foreign-go v-
emed country like India? Dr. Chintamani has nothing but
disapproval for the unconstitutional methods sponsored by
Mahatma Gandhi, as a panacea or shortcut to self-
government....May I ask him whether he can furnish a
solitary instance of its (self-government) being achieved
by methods such as his. But the author does not assert
that the method he approves of is necessarily the more
practicable. All that I understand him to maintain is that
if constitutionalism is wrong, so might equally be
unconstitutionalism. But this tu quoque argument leads us
nowhere—certainly not out of the woods. Would it not be
better, in these circumstances, to leave each party to its
own resources, to let it follow the line it believes in without
condemning its activities.”

Literature and Learning

Though Sinha won many distinctions in the political field, he

was first and foremost a man of learning and culture. He was a
keen student of English literature, history and politics, including
political constitution and constitutional law.
8 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

He was a successful lawyer by profession. He practised as

a Barrister for a period of about forty years, and enjoyed high
reputation for his ability and skill in handling difficult cases and
tackling intractable witnesses. But, with all his eminence and
ability, he did not amass the fortune that some of his contempo¬
raries did, for the simple reason that literature, journalism and
politics were his first love. These claimed more of his time and
attention than law, which is said to be a very jealous mistress, but
whom he would propitiate only to the extent necessary to enable
him to earn enough for a decent and comfortable living.
 Early Life
S achchidananda Sinha was bom at Arrah, (headquarters of the
district of Shahabad in Bihar) on November 10, 1871. He
belonged to a well-to-do and respected Kayastha family of village
Murar. It is not exactly known from where Smha’s ancestors
originally came. The portion of the Murar village, near Buxar,
inhabited by Sinha’s ancestors, is still known as ‘Lakhanua tola’.
From this fact, it may be inferred that, at some remote time, they
might have come from Lucknow, or some place in the neighbor¬
hood of Luchnow.
The Kayasthas of Murar affected the honorific appellation of
‘Bakshi’, either before or after their name, from which it is
presumed that, during the Mughal period of Indian history, their
ancestors might have held some high office in the Military Ac¬
counts Department of the Indo-Mughal Army. Sinha himself never
used this title either before or after his name.
Sinha’s ancestors and the founders of the Dumraon Raj,
probably, settled down almost simultaneously in the district some
centuries back, perhaps as emigrants from Oudh. Ever since, very
close relations had subsisted between the Dumraon Raj family and
the Kayasthas of Murar. Many of the Kayasthas of Murar have
held, from time to time, important posts in the Raj.
Sinha’s grand-father, Bakshi Shiva Prassad Sinha, who died
in 1870 at an advanced age of eighty, was the Chief Revenue
Officer of the Maharaja of Dumraon. He had two sons—the elder
was named Bakshi Ramghulam Sinha, and the younger, Bakshi
Ramyad Sinha. The latter was the father of Sachchidananda
Sinha.
Bakshi Ramghulam Sinha, who died in 1871 at the age of 51,
was a Tehsilder and spent almost his entire official career in the
eastern district of what is now known as Uttar Pradesh.
10 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

Sachchindanada’s father, Bakshi Ramyad Sinha, also started

his life in the executive service of the then North-Western Prov¬
inces. He continued to serve till some time after the Revolt of 1857.
Later, he resigned his job and started practice as a lawyer at
Banars. Shortly thereafter, he shifted to Arrah in 1865 on the
suggestion of the Maharaja of Dumraon, who made him the
permanent lawyer of the Raj. It was here, at Arrah, that
Sachchidananda was bom on November 10, 1871.
The news of his birth was conveyed by his uncle to Lakkar
Shah, a Muslim saint, who was believed to have attained commun¬
ion with the Divine and who was regarded as a man of great piety
and character. The saint felt very happy and said: “He is a lucky
child and will never suffer from want. He will live long and will
be happy”. The saint then pulled out some hair from his moustache
and gave it to Sinha’s uncle, saying “put them into a locket and
let the child wear it as an amulet until he is twenty-one. Accord¬
ingly, Sinha wore the locket till after his return from England in
January 1893.
About this locket, Sinha used to narrate how on the call-night,
as he bent down to sign his name as a full-fledged Barrister in
the Register of the “Hon’ble Society of the Middle Temple”, in
the famous Elizabethan Hall, he found the locket sticking out from
underneath his stiff dress-shirt. He somehow managed the situ¬
ation, but never gave up wearing it throughout the period of his
stay abroad. He put it off only after his return home, and that too
when his mother had permitted him to do so. He continued to
possess the locket throughout his life, and cherished it as the sole
companion of his infancy and youth. Whatever might be efficacy
of this amulet in contributing to his success in life, Sinha believed
that it did obliterate from his mind and heart many prejudices
against Muslims, which stood him in good stead in later life while
working for Hindu-Muslim unity in India. It may also be noted that
Lakkar Shah’s prophecy about Sinha being a lucky child, suffering
from no want, proved true to the letter. Till the very end of his
life, Sinha knew no want and lived a successful, happy and luxu¬
rious life. It was aptly said of him that he was an aristocrat among
intellectuals, and an intellectual among aristocrats.
EARLY LIFE 11

“Nam-karan”

An interesting story about the i aming of the new-born child

may be related here. Sinha’s father, Bakshi Ramyad Sinha, and
Babu Harbans Sahay were very intimate friends. The latter was
also a leading member of the Arrah Bar and was the first Bihari
to be nominated to the old Bengal Legislative Council in 1882. The
two friends had agreed among themselves that if the wife of one
of them gave birth to a male child, and the wife of the other to
a female child, they would be married in due course. This came
as ordained that the wives of both gave birth to sons. This came
as a great disappointment to them. They, however, arrived at a
solution by choosing for both the babies the same name—
Sachchidananda. The name was chosen by Sinha’s father. Al¬
though a beautiful name from the Hindu Philosophic point of view,
it was, as Sinha used to say,“the worst name I could have been
given from the point of view of spelling or pronunciation. I myself
could never write it correctly until 1890 when, on a visit to Prof.
Max Muller, at Oxford, he tactfully conveyed to me (by spelling
the name as I do now) on the cover of a letter addressed to me,
thereby sparing my feelings by not pointing' out directly that I could
not spell my name correctly. I tore up old cards at once and have
struck heroically to the correct spelling since then—with its double
c/*,as pre prescribed by the savant and orientalist, in place of only
one ch. ”

Moral and Intellectual Training

Being the youngest and the only male child in the family, young
Sinha was naturally made much of by his parents whose love and
affection were lavishly bestowed upon him. At the same time, the
utmost care was taken to help him develop good habits and
character. Whatever success Sinha was able to achieve in this
direction, it was entirely due to his mother who was a strict
disciplinarian and exercised a strong influence upon him. About
her, Sinha writes:
“Though she can hardly be said to have been an educated
12 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

woman judged by modem standards, yet she was by no means

uneducated,... She was taught Hindi by her parents, and she was
well-versed in that language, judged by the test that she could
fluently read and easily understand that classic work in Hindi
poetry, namely, the Ramayana of the greatest Hindi poet, Tulsi
Das...She used to read the Ramayana daily and to explain its
lesson to the womenflok, and the children in the house. Thus, I
leamt the Ramayana at my mother’s feet, and the intimate knowl¬
edge, which I posses of the contents of the greatest work in Hindi
literature, has been a source of inspiration to me throughout my
life. Though I leamt form my mother when I was between the
ages of five and fifteen, I can still recite correctly from memory
long passages from the famous epic”.
About his mother’s sense of discipline, Sinha say: “Her sense
of discipline had affected for the better my whole life, by making
me adopt many good and healthy habits—early rising, regularity
in meals, moderation in food and drink, absolute non-smoking and
many good and traits, including that of adopting method and system
in my work for which I had been justly given credit by my friends
and which had contributed to such success I had been able to
achieve—I owe entirely to my mother. As such, I am naturally
a great believer in discipline and good habits, which, next to
character, are the greatest assets which one should possess to be
able to achieve even a fair measure of success, as without char¬
acter, discipline and good habits the best brain cannot carry one
far in life”.
An interesting example of his mother being a strict discipli¬
narian was narrated by Sinha: “When I was just about five years
of age someone offered me a folded betel-leaf with the usual
spices, and the effect of which is to leave a red tint on the tongue-
teeth and lips. The chewing of betel is a universal custom among
the people of India, and seeing other people do it, I saw no harm
in following their example. But my mother was greatly annoyed
at seeing me chewing the betel. She called me to her, asked me
to put out my tongue. The moment I did so, she caught hold of
it and gave it such a sharp twist that the pain brought forth tears
to my eyes. That was the first and the last occasion that I indulged
EARLY LIFE 13

in the practice of chewing betel, and I am sure I have been all

my life much the better for my mother’s reprimand”.
It was again from his mother that he had inherited the great
qualities of large-heartedness, generosity and hospitality with the
result that, for more than fifty years, eminent persons from almost
all parts of the country, and hot unoften foreigners too, used to
be his guests, both at Patna and Allahabad. In fact, Sinha took
a peculiar delight in entertaining guests on a lavish scale. Every
day one would find at least half a dozen friends enjoying his
hospitality for he never liked to sit at the dinner table all alone.
Sinha’s father was deeply interested in the study of compara¬
tive religions and he had a large number of books on the subject
in his library. He was also a regular reader of newspapers and
periodicals in the Hindi and Urdu languages, published at the time
form the capital cities of the provinces of Oudh (the present
Uttar Pradesh) and Punjab. Sinha inherited from his father, in full
measure, a love of books and devotion to study and, in particular,
interest in the study of the political and cultural history of Islam.
He had also inherited from his father a love of travelling. In view
of the great difficulties of travelling in those days, it was truly
remarkable that his father should have visited most of the Hindu
centres of pilgrimage—Puri, Rameswaram, Dwarka,
Jwalamukhi,etc.
Another quality inherited by him from his parents was a spirit
of rationalism and disbelief in the supernatural, and astrological
predictions by ‘jyotishis’, ‘rammals’, ‘fals’, of palm-reading by
plamists and in superstition, etc. As a “Vedantis”, said Sinha, “my
father believed in nothing supernatural, and was never tired of
impressing upon me that belief in astrology, and its inevitable
concomitants, was not only wrong but a great evil. And he was
beyond a shadow of doubt absolutely right in this respect.”

‘MaKTAB VID YARAM BH ’

Sinha was just five years of age when his ‘Maktab’ or

‘Vidyarambh’ ceremony was performed. After the necessary
puja of Sri Ganesh and goddess Saraswati was performed, the
14 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

Maulvi Saheb first caught hold of his right hand and made him write
on a wooden slate the first alphabets of the Perso-Arabic script
followed by the Hindu Pandit who helped him the first five letters
of the Devanagari script. The next day, a teacher of English was
called to initiate him into writing the Roman alphabets.
After receiving education at home fora year in English, Urdu
and Hindi, under three different tutors young Sinha was admitted
for studying up to the ‘tenth’ class (this class then was called in
Entrance or the Matriculation class) of the Arrah Zila School in
February 1877. Thus began his school career which extended to
10 year, that being the period prescribed for preparation for the
Entrance (Matricualtion) examination which he passed in 1888.
Throughout his career at school, he continued to be one of the top
boys in his class.
In 1884, on being promoted to the fourth standard, Sinha was
asked to make a choice between Sanskrit and Persian as his
second language. At first, he took up Sanskrit, but found that he
had made a wrong choice. Although he could retain his position
in other subjects as one of the top-most boys in his class, he could
not make much progress in Sanskrit. Ultimately, he changed to
Persian. The Sanskrit teacher’s defective method of teaching
failed to create among the students any taste for the study of
Sanskrit, while his tactless and rough way of dealing with them
scared away several of them from his class. Sinha used to narrate
an incident which embittered him not only against the pandit, but
even against the study of Sanskrit itself. Every day the pandit
would put some question to him and on his failing to give satis¬
factory answer, he would shout at the top of his voice : “Go to
the last row in the class, and stand up on the bench with your face
to the wall”. This had become a sort of daily routine for him.
Nothing could satisfy the pandit who was always very bitter and
sarcastic in his remarks to Sinha. He would even say: “Why don’t
you join the Persian class, instead of trying to learn Sanskrit which
your forefather never did”. This acted, as the proverbial last straw
on the camel’s back, which made him leave the Sanskrit class and
join the Persian class.
EARLY LIFE 15

Dispute with the Head Master

At the end of the annual examination in 1886, Sinha was

promoted to the Entrance class, having topped the list of successful
candidates, and he looked forward to pursuing his studies peace¬
fully under a Head Master who was kind and good to him. But
fate had willed it otherwise. After the long vacation, a new Head
Master came on transfer. Unfortunately, a dispute arose between
him and the students of the Entrance class, because of the former
having tactlessly made one of the students stand up on the bench.
This was regarded by the other students as very humiliating; their
impression was that the Entrance class students deserved or even
had the right to be treated on a better footing than the student of
lower classes. Sinha had a reputation among his fellow students
for courage and independence. It was decided that he should, with
two other fellow students, meet the Head Master and make a
written representation against such humiliating treatment. When
they went to the Head Master, he flew into a rage and shouted
: “Oh you rascals, so you are going to be the ring-leaders of a
conspiracy against me; wait, I shall teach you a lesson when I
come to your class today.” Accordingly, coming to the class-room
he gave a long sermon, threatened to rusticate all the students of
the class unless they tendered an unqualified and unconditional
apology to him within twenty-four hours. This was too much for
the students. They felt that instead of their apologizing, the Head
Master should himself apologise to them. Thus began a tug-of-war
which lasted for about six months, resulting in the suspension of
teaching in the Entrance class.
When Sinha told his father about this matter, the latter was
at first reluctant to intervene. Ultimately, he was prevailed upon
to meet the Head Master with an application for a transfer cer¬
tificate to enable his son to join some other school. But the Head
Master spoke rudely to him, and refused to pass any order on the
application. Thereupon, Sinha’s father told him that he would report
the matter to the Inspector of Schools. This infuriated the Head
Master ever more and he challenged him to do his worst.
16 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

As a result of this attitude of the Head Master towards Sinha’s

father, the parents and guardians of almost all other students
applied for transfer certificates for their sons and wards. The Head
Master now found himself in a fix; probably, he now felt that he
had gone too far. He met the Inspector of Schools with his own
version of the affair. Shortly thereafter, the Inspector, J.V.S. Pope
visited the school and, against the wishes of the Head Master, he
met the guardians of the students who had assembled in the Zila
School to make a joint representation to him. Pope met the students
also and tried to persuade them to continue their studies in the
school. The student, however, remained adamant and refused to
go back to their class till the Head Master had apologized to them.
Thereupon, the Head Master passed a general order refusing to
grant a transfer certificate to any student. On the recommendation
of the Inspector of Schools, the Directors of Pubic Instructions,
Bengal (Sri Alfred Croft), passed the order of rustication against
all the students, about 100 in number.
In spite of the above order, almost all the students joined other
schools. Young Sinha came to Patna and joined the T.K. Ghosh
Academy in October 1887. However, the students, who had joined
other schools without transfer certificates, were not allowed to
appear at the Entrance examination without the special permission
of the Inspector of Schools. Representations were, therefore,
made by the heads of the institutions which the boys had joined.
Ultimately, the Director of Public Instruction, on reconsideration
of the matter, cancelled his previous order of rustication and
allowed the students to appear at the Entrance examination. The
order was passed only a few weeks before the examination, yet
some of the student did appear and pass the examination. Sinha
was also one the them, and he managed to pass in second division.

ANew Ambition

In July 1888, Sinha took his admission in the first year class
of the Patan College. But his heart was not in his studies. He had,
by this time, come to cherish the ambition of going to England for
being called to the Bar. While at school in Arrah, he had formed
EARLY LIFE 17

an intimate and life-long friendship with two Mohammadan youths,

Ali Imam and his younger brother, Hasan Imam. Both these
brothers later distinguished themselves as lawyers, administrators,
judges and public men. It was Imam’s departure for England in
the autumn of 1887 for being called to the Bar that first put the
idea in the mind of young Sinha that he too should go to England
to qualify for practice as a barrister.
Enormous, almost insurmountable, were the difficulties in his
way. Till then, no Bihari Hindu had dared to cross the seas, so
strong were the religious and social prejudices against such an
idea. Besides, being the only male child of his doting parents, it
was unthinkable that the latter would ever willingly agree to the
proposal of their son. But Sinha’s heart was set upon it, and he
was determined to fulfil his ambition at all costs.
Steadfast in aim tenacious of purpose, he set about making
plans and devising ways to raise enough funds for the purpose.
He got some encouragement and sympathy from Pandit Madan
Mohan Malaviya to whom he had communicated his desire when
the Pandit had come to Arrah in connection with the work of
the Congress. It was on his suggestion that Sinha started a cor¬
respondence campaign, so to say, with a number of leading public
men throughout the country. He was, however, greatly disap¬
pointed that many of them did not care even to acknowledge
his letters. The few who did, could offer only lip sympathy and
no promise of nay financial help. Fortunately, among his own
relations and his father’s friends, he discovered a few persons
who held progressive views—persons like the late Shyamalanand,
Vakil of Arrah, Kandhij Sahay, and Raja Raj Rajeswari Prasad
Sinha of Surajpura. They came forward to help him with necessary
funds. Sinha naturally felt jubilant and immediately started cor¬
respondence with Messrs Thomas Cook & Sons for booking a
passage to England. A certain date had also been fixed when
Sinha was to go to Arrah from Patan to take the money and
then stealthily leave for Bombay to board the ship. Till this time,
he had kept the whole thing a closely guarded secret from his
parents. But fate had willed it otherwise. A day or two before
the plan was expected to mature, it leaked out and his father
18 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

came to know all about it. Sinha’s father rushed to Patna and
brought Sinha to Arrah. He told him that his mother had become
so disconsolate on hearing of his plan to go abroad that it was
apprehended she might pass away any moment. The father further
told Sinha that it was not necessary for him to prosecute his studies
any futher. To young Sinha this was a bolt from the blue. He
had, however, no option but to quietly obey his father. He remained
at Arrah and dropped all his plans for going abroad for the time
being. He felt utterly miserable about it. While at Arrah, he became
an object of pity among his father’s friends and relations, and
also of ridicule among his own friends. The very idea that a Hindu
young man should ever think of going to England was something
horrible to the minds of many people at that time.

Frustration and Struggle

After he had spent two weeks at Arrah, some of his father’s

friends prevailed upon him to allow Sachchidananda to go and join
some college at Calcutta. Accordingly, Sinha was sent to Calcutta
and placed under the guardianship of a near relation of his, who
was then practising as a Vakil in the Calcutta High Court. Sinha
took his admission in the second year class of the City College,
but he had not yet reconciled himself to the idea of prosecuting
his studies in India. He seldom attended the college classes, and
spent most of his time in tramping about the city—particularly the
jetties from where he would watch the steamers leave for foreign
countries. All the time, he was planning how to raise enough funds
at least to pay for his passage. He thought of selling everything
that he possessed—gold rings, gold watch and chain, Kashmiri
shawls and a few other things of the kind. But it was no easy thing
to do. He did not know their proper value, and in his over-anxiety
to raise funds he was found willing to part with them even at a
price very much lower than their fair market value. This naturally
created suspicion in the minds of buyers who thought that they
might be stolen property. They, therefore, insisted on his accom¬
panying them to the nearest police station to have some kind of
entry made in the police register.
EARLY LIFE 19

Just at the time, when Shina was struggling with his misfortune,
he received a letter from an old friend of his father offering to
send him Rs.200 towards the payment of his passage money. At
the same time, he enjoined upon him absolute secrecy for fear of
getting into trouble with his father. In due course, Sinha received
the money which formed the nucleus of his funds. The amount
that he received from his father’s friend and the amount that he
was able to raise by the sale of his valuables, however, did not
prove enough to meet the cost of a through ticket to London. So,
on the advice of the agent of Messrs Thornes Cook & Sons, he
took a second class steamer ticket up to Aden only, keeping some
money in hand for emergencies.
With a mere Rs. 50 in his pocket, he boarded the steamer
S.S.Nepal of the P. and O. Steam Navigation Co. and sailed on
the morning of December 26, 1889. The die was cast.
Sinha’s nephew, Raghunanadan Prasad, a Vakil of the Calcutta
High Court with whom he was staying in Calcutta, was at this time
spending his Christmas vacation at his village in Bihar. The other
Bihari lawyers practising in the Calcutta High Court, had also left
Calcutta, during the vacation. It was, therefore, plain sailing for
Sinha, both literally and metaphorically. The only members of the
Bihari community there, at that time, were those who had to appear
at the university examinations. Almost all of them were sympa¬
thetic towards his attempt to go to London for study. They had
therefore, all come to bid him good-bye and wish him bon voyage.
One of them was Krishna Sahay, who, many years later, became
a member of the Bihar and Orissa Governor’s Executive Council.
As chance would have it, he was succeeded by Sinha in that
office.
Four days before he sailed, i.e., on the evening of the Decem¬
ber 25, 1889, Sinha had written to his father and two or three other
persons, who were his father’s friends, requesting them to remit
more founds to enable him to proceed further from Aden. He
stayed for a week or ten days at Aden and, on receipt of money
from his father, continued his journey to London. He landed there
on February 5, 1890.
20 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

In London

During his stay in London, Sinha fully utilised his time to train
his mind and improve his knowledge by study, observation and
reflection. He did not confine himself merely to the preparation
for qualifying for the Bar, but applied himself also to the study of
general subject, including journalism.
He was a prominent member of the Northbrook India Club and
acted as its librarian, at the instance of Lord Northbrook himself,
all through the years of his stay in London as a law student. The
Northbrook Club, it may be noted, was founded by Viceroy and
Governor-General of India in 1876, and continued in that office till
1880. Living in London in retirement, Lord Northbrook had devel¬
oped one great hobby, that of bringing together Indians and Anglo-
Indians staying in the city. With that object in view, he had started
a very fine club, known after his name as the Northbrook India
Office. This Club had a very fine collection of books, particularly
on India. Interested, as Sinha was , in acquiring knowledge, he
welcomed the opportunity offered by Lord Northbrook to take up
the librarianship of that Club. This was only a few months after his
arrival in London. The Club flourished so long as the founder was
alive. After his death, it languished and ceased to exist.
In London, Sinha was an active member of the British Com¬
mittee of the Indian National Congress also, then under the control
management of Digby, an honoured name in the history of India’s
political advancement. In 1890, an India Bill was introduced in
parliament by Charles Bradlaugh, them a prominent and advanced
radical member of the House of Commons. In support of this Bill,
the congress had sent to Britain a deputation consisting of Yule,
W.C. Bonneijee (the first President of the Congress), Surendranath
Banerjee Eardley Norton, R.N. Mudholkar and Moropant Joshi.
Sinha went round with this deputation to almost all the places they
visited, and attended the various functions held in their honour. As
no Muslim was included in the deputation, Sinha managed to induce
All Imam, who had by that time practically completed his studies
for being called to the Bar, to go about with the deputation. This
proved very useful. In the words of Sinha himself, “he spoke
EARLY LIFE 21

impressively as a staunch nationalist, and literally brought down

the house when he wound up with a flourish of his hands toward
the delegates”, and said’ “Behind these men stands the hope of
a great and rising nation”.
Another notable contribution of Sinha to the movement for
India’s freedom in Britain was in the election campaign for Dadabhai
Naroji in 1892. He did a lot of work for him in the Central Finisbury
constituency form which Dadabhai was ultimately elected to the
British Parliament. To celebrate this victory, Smha, with the help
of Rai Bahadur Tej Narayan Singh of Bhagalpur and other leading
Indians in England, had organised a grand banquet. It was attended
by about 500 persons, representing all shades of public opinion.

Conscience and Reason

Sinha returned home after being called to the Bar in February,

1893. A few days before leaving for India, he had received a letter
from his cousin, who had materially helped him in fulfilling his
dream of studying in England. He had asked him to go straight
to Allahabad where he would have to perform the purificatory
ceremony, called Praysachitta, for the supposed sin of having
crossed the sea and gone to England. This was too much for young
Sinha, whose mind was cast in an altogether different mould. The
reply that he gave to his cousin’s letter, refusing to do anything
of the kind, speaks a lot about his courage of conviction, a wide
and logical outlook and strength of character. Sinha wrote:
“If I really belived that visiting England, or for the matter
of that any country, was committing sin, I would never
have attempted to go out of India. It is just because I hold
that travelling abroad for an Indian is not only not com¬
mitting a sin, but, considering the times we live in, is more
or less an act of virtue which is conductive to our progress
and prosperity that I have ventured to come here. If I have
learnt anything here, in this world is hypocrisy, which
consists, in doing things one detests at heart, just to win
popular applause and gain one’s end at any cost...
I am prepared for the worst; I am quite prepared to prove
22 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

a failure at the Bar, and to remain social pariah all my

life, but I shall not deviate a jot from the path of rectitude
and honesty, or prove unworthy of the conviction, I shall
not do anything I do not believe in and I am willing to
undergo all the trials with a firm heart.”
Sinha’s motto in life could well be summed up in the following
verse:
I’ll stand alone,
Though men may laugh and mock my loneliness;
I ’ 11 think my thought,
Thought fate may flood my ways with bitterness;
I’ll fight my fight,
Though enemies be strong and struggle great;
I’ll face the world,
And laugh to scorn the scoffers of my state;
And I’ll conquer,
With my head still gory from the strife;
I’ll find my rest
And thank my God for strength throughout my life.

Back Home

On the way back from London, he broke journey at Allahabad

where he was the recipient of an address at a public meeting
arranged by the young men of the city. The most prominent
speaker at the meeting was Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya.
Before leaving for England, Sinha had already made acquaintance
with Pandit Malaviya when the latter had gone on a visit to Bihar
in 1889 in connection with the Congress work.
From Allahabad, Sinha came to his native town of Arrah,
where also he received a great welcome. Several public meetings
were held at which addresses were presented to him.
F.H. Skrine, who was the District Officer of Shahabad at the
time, had thrown himself heart and soul into the popular movement,
and had written a series of letters to the Indian and Anglo-Indian
papers, appealing to the Bihari Hindus to rally round the banner
of reform and progress held up by this enterprising son of Bihar.
EARLY LIFE 23

To express the sympathy of the local European community, he had

thrown a grand evening party which was largely attended by both
Indian and Europeans.
After a few weeks’ stay at home, and a visit to his ancestral
village (Murar), Sinha got himself enrolled as an advocate of the
Calcutta High Court and settled down in 1893 to practise at Patna
(which was then better known as Bankipore). In a short time, he
acquired reputation as a clever and capable junior. There were
several leading lawyers in those days at the Patna Bar, and
gradually they all came to appreciate the work of this new member
of the profession.

Social and Political Conditions

In order to appraise and appreciate correctly the life-story of

Sinha, it is necessary to recall here the social and political con¬
ditions in which he was bom and brought up, and lived and worked.
In his “Reminiscences” (which he could not complete and there¬
fore remains unpublished) Sinha wrote:
“Orthodoxy of the extreme type reigned supreme among
the Hindus in those days. They were subject to so many
taboos in social customs and manners. Caste restriction
and untouchability prevailed in a most rigid form. Crossing
the seas for going abroad was regarded as committing a
great sin; and so none could dare even conceive such an
idea.
With all these, however, the social relation between the
Hindus and Mulims in Bihar used to be very cordial not
only in villages but even in towns and cities. In the eighties
and the nineties of the last century, the Hindus and the
Muslim lived together as members of one community,
displaying great tolerance for each other’s religious sen¬
timents, rights and ceremonies, with the result that they
lived on most peaceful terms, sharing the joys and sorrows
of each other.”
A few words about the relations between the Indians and the
Britishers in India will not be out of place here. They were, in .the
24 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

words of Sinha, “neither good nor bad”, for the simple reason that
no social relations existed between the two. The Britishers were
regarded both by themselves and by the Indians as belonging to
a higher order of humanity than even the best among Indians. They
had their own clubs and churches to which they repaired for their
social and religious intercourse; they regarded Indians as subjects
of every British man and woman. No member of the Provincial
Civil Service, having Hinus or Muslim name, was ever officially
allowed to add ‘Mister’ before his name; in official records, he
was described only as ‘Babu so-and-so’. In brief, “they lived in
India as apart from each other as if thy inhabited two different
globes. Sometimes, but very rarely, the Britishers were invited to
a banquet on the occasion of a marriage or some festival in a rich
man’s house, for which catering arrangements used to be in the
hands of some reputed European firm of Calcutta. But even at
such a banquet, no Indian would be invited by the host”.
In this connection, Sinha, used to mention an interesting inci¬
dent. “Early in the eighties, a magnificent banquet was held at
Dumraon to celebrate the installation of Sir Radha Prasad Singh
on the “gaddi” of the Dumraon Raj, at which were invited, besides
the Lieutenant Governor, Sir Ashley Eden, along with his entou¬
rage, and the British civilian officers stationed at Arrah, the head¬
quarters of the district of Shahabad, almost all the members of the
British community in Bihar. But no invitation for the banquet was
extended to B.N.De, a member of the Indian Civil Service, who
was then posted as Sub-Divisional Officer at Sasaram (in whose
jurisdiction was situated a large part of the territory of Dumraon
Estate), though he was present at Dumraon for the installation
ceremony at the invitation of the Maharaja. De, however, was
not the man to take it lying low. He sought an interview with the
Lieutenant Governor, and was reported to have told him point-
blank that perhaps the only ground on which he had been slighted
by exclusion from the banquet was the fact that both in the
European classics and in English composition he had been able to
obtain, at the open competition for the Civil Service in London, ever
so much higher marks than any of his British confrereres, who
had appeared with him at that examination. Sir Ashley Eden felt
EARLY LIFE 25

convinced that the action of the District Magistrate was wholly

indefensible. He spoke to the Commissioner of Patna Division
about it, and sent word through him to the District Magistrate that
unless De was allowed to occupy his proper place at the banquet,
he would not be able to accept the position of the chief guest on
that occasion. This was something for which th~ British officialdom,
assembled at Dumraon, was by no means prepared. The Lieuten¬
ant Governor, having taken up the stem attitude that he did, they
had to give in and eat the humble pie. De’s ramparts of the social
citadel sought to be set up by the British hierarchy in India to
exclude even a pre-eminently deserving Indian like De, from a
social function like the one at Dumraon, where the host himself
was an Indian and the officials were merely organizers on his
behalf.”
As regards the political condition, it may be said that “the
British rule had come to be regarded at the time as absolutely
immutable, as if ordained by Providence like one of the laws of
nature. Ideas of Indian independence or Dominion Status, with the
right of secession from the British Empire, were wholly beyond
conception. In fact, any political movement worth its name had
not appeared on the Indian political horizon until after the first
session of the Indian National Congress, held in Bombay in the
Christmas week of the 1885.
“Ideas about social reform and progress were not at all seriously
entertained at the time, except by some individuals here and there.
One redeeming feature of life, however, was that there was peace,
amity and goodwill all around between the people and the govern¬
ment on the one hand, and the various sections and classes of people
on the other, though perhaps it was the peace of the grave.
“The only educated section of the people in Bihar then con¬
sisted of but two small communities—those who belonged to the
higher strata among the Muslims, and the Kayasthas among the
Hindus. It is these two communities that offered the largest number
of recruits both for government service and the legal profession.
But even among them, there were few who knew the English
language; so the vast bulk of the members of the public services
were Bengalis. Not only the highest judicial and executive offices,
26 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

but many of the ministerial posts also were filled, by them. The
Biharis in those days had no higher aspiration in any sphere of
activity, and were content to play the second or the third fiddle
in their own province. They were content to take the then joint
administration of the two provinces (of advanced Bengal and
backward Bihar) as an act of God which they could no more think
of attempting to change than of stopping the course of planetary
bodies”.*

A Social Rebel

Such was the time and condition of things in which young Sinha
was bom and brought up. But he decided, very early in life, to
play the role of a social rebel, when he took courage to cross the
seas in 1889 as a lad of eighteen, and to go to England for studies.
He was the first Bihari Hindu to do so, and ever since then, all
his life, he remained a rebel against all such social customs and
conventions as stood in the way of progress and advancement.
The next step that he took as a keen and staunch social
reformer was to carry out his cherised idea of inter-marriage, by
himself marrying Radhika, the only daughter of Seva Ram, Bar-
at-Law of Lahore, and grand-daughter of Rai Bahadur Kanhaiya
Lai, a distinguished engineer of his time, who belonged to a
different sub-sect of the Kayastha community. Radhika Sinha was
a cultured woman, wealthy and generous-hearted, who made a
magnificent donation of Rs. 50,000 to the Kayastha Pathshala of
Allahabad, and another donation of an equal sum to the Lahore
University. In addition, she gave over Rs. 1,50,000 for constructing
the building of the Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidananda
Sinha Library at Patna.
Foreign travel and inter-marriage have now become too com¬
mon amongst all classes of Hindus that it is hard to believe that
they had ever been regarded as amounting to committing a sin to
do so. But, as Sinha himself pointed out in the course of his
presidential address, delivered at the 35th session of the Kayastha
♦Sinha’s reminisences serialised in the ‘Hindustan Review’ in 1946-47 under the
heading “Recollections and Reminiscence of a Long Life”.
EARLY LIFE 27

Conference at Delhi in 1929, that at the Banaras session of the

aforesaid Conference, and again at its Lucknow session, “a great
deal of the time of the Conference, mostly in the lobby, was
devoted hurting my feelings, on the occasions, they found in him
a tough person to deal with. In spite of the stiff opposition to his
taking part in the deliberations of the Conference, he held his
ground successfully and did exercise his right as a member. At
last, in course of time, he had the great satisfaction of seeing that
all the indignities and criticisms that he had to suffer earlier at the
hands of the old conservatives had not gone in vain. The position
taken up by him was fully vindicated when he was called upon
to preside over the deliberations of the Kayastha Conference at
Delhi in March 1929. The example set by him had its tremendous
impact not only on the young men of the Kayastha community but
also on those belonging to other Hindu communities. Visiting foreign
countries across the seas became such a common affairs later that
many are apt to think now as if it had always been like that. But
those who are old enough to recollect the great agitation that used
to greet Hindus returning from abroad against their acceptance in
their caste or community, will remember what a brave fight a
pioneer reformer like Sinha had to put up.
Sinha’s zeal for women’s education found expression in the
emphasis that he laid on it in his presidential address at the
Kayastha Conference at Delhi. He said:
“It is of tremendous importance that young men, in par¬
ticular, should have a chance of improving by means of
proper exercise not only their intellect but, even much
more so, their emotions also on the right lines. For obvious
reasons, it is not possible for our schools and colleges to
offer our youths suitable opportunity for what can be
properly developed and exercised only in the more con¬
genial surroundings of one’s home, and as the home naturally
implied the influence and guidance of women, it is clear
that there could be no suitable surroundings for the growth
of their emotion unless the women were qualified by
education to play their part, as they should, in moulding
the lives and destinies of our younger generation.”
28 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

The physical and mental emancipation of women, he

emphasised, was the greatest need of the hour. Fortunately, Sinha
lived to see the great advance made in this direction since the days
he uttered the above words.
Another reform that Sinha preached in his early days was the
fusion of the different section of the Kayastha community into one
larger unit. He felt that the only way to destroy, root and branch,
the disintegrating forces that had operated for ages past was to
promote inter-marriage among the various sections and sub-sec¬
tions of the community on an extensive scale. Here too, Sinha had
the satisfaction of seeing, in his own life-time, this reform gradually
taking practical shape.

No Spasmodic or Haphazard Social Reform

Sinha did not believe that any effort at social reform in any
community should be spasmodic or haphazard and wanted it to be
“a long, continuous process of adjustment and constant adaptability
to environment”. He observed, in the course of his presidential
address at the Kayastha Conference at Delhi:
“Nothing is stable or abiding under the sun, and this world
is not so much in a state of being, as of becoming; we
can thus as little arrest the process of evolution in the
moral and material world as we can stay the sweep of
the tides or the course of the stars. That being so, our duty
is quite clear—to take advantage of this great law of life
and to do so shape our ideas and conduct that, by acting
in consonance with it, we may subserve the great end of
nature, namely, progress from lower to higher forms and
state.... People should shed such defects in their character
made any work of reform difficult, slow and not unoften,
abortive. I mean defects like extreme conservatism, blind
confidence in the existing state of things, disbelief in the
efficacy of change, lack of enterprise and correct per¬
spective, reluctance to face stem realities, resorting to
metaphysical casuistries in the effort to work round dif¬
ficulties, legal subtleties and logical sophistries, tendency
EARLY LIFE 29

to shirk responsibilities, our ingrained spirit of disunity,

habits of sheer indolence and procarstination, and loose
and careless talk, habits of making reckless promises and
assertions, and disturst of each other, the absence of any
feeling of genuine cooperation, etc. etc.
If therefore we desire to make a steady progress, and to
rise in the scale of peoples, then we should develop those
phases of character which will enable us to discharge
properly our duties and responsibilities, both as citizens of
the State and as members of the community.”
Another important point that Sinha stressed in his presidential
address was the undesirability of invoking more and more the
assistance of the State in bringing about social reform. But he was
not opposed to State action for advancing social reform and
progress. As a matter of fact, in 1921, he strongly supported the
motion of V.J. Patel in the Imperial Legislative Council to refer
his (Patel’s) Hindu Marriage Validity Bill to a select Committee.
It was a permissive measure which aimed at legalising marriages
between higher and lower social groups inside the Hindu commu¬
nity, which was strongly opposed by the orthodox Hindu members
of the Council. Sinha strongly deprecated the view pro-pounded
by some members that “a man who lived in a certain society or
under certain administration, must subscribe to all its rules regu¬
lations without making any effort to have them improved or amended,
or he should go out of it”. He knew, and made no secret of it,
that the people whom he represented in the Council were against
that measure, yet he had the courage to support it. He believed
“it was the bounden duty of every human being to improve his
condition and surroundings, whether political, social, or moral”.
His opposition was against the tendency to rush to the leg¬
islature with all kinds of Bills for eradicating social evils. In his
view, such enforced reform from outside could never lead to
beneficial results. According to him, any social reform, in order
to be lasting and successful, must be spontaneous and based upon
the people’s conviction, and not forced from outside on pain of
penalties. He therefore, pleaded that if a social reform movement
was to succeed, people should be trained to develop the qualities
30 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

of individual responsibility and courage of conviction—qualities

which Sinha personally demonstrated in ample measure.

Stay at Allahabad

In 1896, his health broke down after an attack of virulent

malaria. He was, therefore, advised by his doctor to move to some
healthier place. Accordingly, he chose Allahabad and got himself
enrolled as an advocate of the Allahabad High Court in November
1896. He practised there till 1906, in which year he returned to
Patna and settled down to practise in the District Court. But he
never severed his link with Allahabad. During the year that he
stayed at Allahabad, he had built a house of his own (7 Elgin Road)
where his wife remained practically for the whole of her life.
Allahabad thus became a sort of permanent home for him, which
he visited very often although practising at Patna. The office of
his famous journal Hindustan Review, was also located there for
many years. The work of this journal frequently took him to
Allahabad.
In July 1900, he was appointed Secretary of the Kayastha
Pathshala by its President, Munshi Govind Prasad, who was at that
time a leading member of the Allahabad Bar. By this time, Sinha
had come to know intimately almost all the leading public men of
Utter Pradesh (then known as the United Provinces of Agra and
Oudh). Among them were Pandit Motilal Nehru, Sir Tej Bahadur
Sapru and Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, beside many others.
His acquaintance with Pandit Motilal Nehru, in course of time,
developed into a life-long and intimate friendship.
Soon after he had settled down at Allahabad, (in November
1896) Sinha again got one of those attacks of malarial fever which
had compelled him to leave Patna. After the fever had subsided,
he naturally felt dull and depressed for several days. The doctor
who was attending on him prescribed several tonics to tone up his
system, but these failed to act satisfactorily. One day, growing
desperate, the doctor told him that he would prescribe a tonic
which was the best in his reportory, and, if that failed, he was
afraid, he could do nothing further for him, although he was sure
EARLY LIFE 31

that it would never fail. “Why did you not prescribe this tonic
before?”, asked Sinha. The doctor said that it was for the simple
reason that ‘he’ was not available there. He told Sinha that he
would come a day or two later. “What do you mean, doctor?”
asked Sinha. “Is the tonic a medicine or a human being?” “Of
course, a human being”, replied the doctor, or I would not have
used the word ‘he’ for it”. “Who on earth is he?” , asked Sinha
again. The doctor said, “His name is Pandit Motilal Nehru. So, one
day, the doctor took him to Pandit Motilal Nehru who received
Sinha very cordially, and soon made him feel quite at home. In
fact, at the end of half an hour, Sinha felt as if he had known him
(Panditji) all his life. By then, it was dinner time and Sinha got up
to say good night. But Panditji insisted that they should dine
together. Not only that, he ordered his servant to get from Sinha’s
house (which was at that time very close to that occupied by
Panditji) the food that had been prepared for his dinner. And so
they had that night their dinner together, and thus was laid the
foundation of a friendship which lasted till Pandit Motilal’s death
in 1931. During this long period, in spite of some political differ¬
ences, the friendship became closer.
Sinha had known Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru ever since the former
joined the Allahabad High Court. The intimate friendship that
developed between the two lasted for over three decades, un¬
clouded by even a speak of misunderstanding.
Sinha had first come to know Pandit Madam Mohan Malaviya
when he was planning to go to London for study. Pandit Malaviya
was touring Bihar in 1889 on Congress propaganda work when
Sinha had the proud privilege of playing the host to him, both at
Arrah and at Patna. Later, during his stay at Allahabad, the two
had come to know each other intimately. For a number of years,
they worked together in the old Imperial Legislative Council and
had developed great regard and respect for each other.
In brief, during the years Sinha stayed at Allahabad, he had
become a very popular and prominent figure, both in the social and
political life of the city. In fact, it may well be said that, during
these years, he gave his best to the United Provinces, taking part
in all public affairs. In appreciation, he was invited to preside over
32 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

the Kanpur session of the U.P. Provincial Conference in 1913. It

was mainly through his efforts that the United Provinces of Agra
and Oudh had been able to secure the establishment of an Ex¬
ecutive Council for the Lieutenant Governor, in spite of the very
strong opposition of the then Lieutenant Governor, Sir John Hewett.
Sinha had gained a good footing at the Allahabad Bar, but he
often used to visit Patna and other places in Bihar also on pro¬
fessional work. Thus by 1905, he had secured for himself an
honoured place in the profession in Bihar, and his old friends there,
especially Ali Imam (later Sir) and Hasan Imam pressed him hard
to shift his practice to Patna which he did in 1906. But he continued
to maintain his connection with Allahabad all through his life.
 Creator of Modern Bihar
T hough Sinha settled down to practise as a barrister at Patna,
he would not be himself if he merely confined himself to his
profession. Essentially, by nature and instinct, he was cut out for
politics, for journalism and for literature. These were the obses¬
sions of this devout patriot. He was, therefore, itching to enter
public life and to dedicate himself to the service of his people and
the country.
At that time, there was no such province as Bihar. Very few,
if at all, outside this region knew if there was any part of India
known as Bihar. This was forced upon the attention of Sinha during
his stay in London as a student. It was, to quote his own words,
“a painful and humiliating discovery that not only was Bihar a terra
incognita to the average Britisher, and to the retired Anglo-
Indians, but even to the majority of Indians residing in London.
Some of my Indian friends in Britain even challenged me to a
literary combat and dared me to point out any such province as
Bihar in a recognised text-book of geography”. Further, when
Sinha was returning from England, he met on board the steamer
an Indian who was a graduate of the Punjab University, and also
a barrister. In the course of their conversation, he asked Sinha
what part of the country he came form, and on being told that he
belonged to Bihar, the Punjab barrister expressed surprise, and
confessed point-blank that he had never heard of any such prov¬
ince. Not that this gentleman was particularly ignorant, but he
merely represented any average educated Indian of that time to
whom Bihar was a terra incognita. Then again, Sinha’s sense
of shame and humiliation was further intensified on the realisation
of the fact that he and his people of Bihar had no individuality and
no province which they could call their own, when he noticed at
the very first railway station in Bihar a tall, robust and stalwart
34 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

Bihari constable wearing the badge with the inscription ‘Bengal

Police’. He, therefore, resolved to do all that lay in his power to
secure for Bihar a distinct and honourable place as an adminis¬
trative unit, with an individuality of its own, on the same footing
as that of the more important provinces of the country.
Now, what was the condition of Bihar when it formed only
an appendage of Bengal? The people felt very bitterly that in
almost every sphere—education, medical relief or Government
services—Bihari was not only blatantly discriminated against, but
even ignored by the Government. The Biharis, so to say, were
suppressed and depressed and denied proper facilities or oppor¬
tunities for progress. They, therefore, desired to separate them¬
selves from Bengal and to be constituted into an administrative unit
of their own. But there was none to agitate effectively for it and
show the way to gain that end. “Speaking broadly”, Sinha once
remarked. “Public life and public activities in Patna in 1893 were
at a very low ebb indeed. The atmosphere was damp and chilly....and,
outside Patna, it was a case of lower deep in the lowest deep”.
Fortunately, they found in Sachchidananda Sinha a messiah,
so to say, to lead them and to organise a powerful campaign for
this purpose. This was indeed a formidable task, as powerful
vested interests were ranged against such a proposal. Both the
press and the public men of Bengal were dead set against the very
idea of separation of Bihar from Bengal. For example The
Bengalee, edited by that distinguished orator and veteran leader,
Surendranath Baneijee, in one of its issues acknowledged that the
state of affairs in Bihar was far from satisfactory and the Bihar
was not getting its due. Yet, the same paper strongly opposed the
idea of separation and, in support of its contention trotted out the
hackneyed argument that “close association with an advanced
province not only tends to keep up to standard of administration
in the less favourable district, but levels up their inhabitants”. The
actual experience of the people of Bihar, however, was entirely
different. In their everyday life, they felt that their continuance as
an appendage of Bengal had actually resulted in their levelling
down, instead of levelling up.
Undaunted, Barrister Sinha threw himself into the fray, deter-
CREATOR OF MODERN BIHAR 35

mined to realise the dream of his life by securing for Bihar a

separate existence as distinct administrative unit. He, however, felt
that without a journal, owned or even edited by a Bihari, nothing
could be done to organise and push on the campaign for separation.
The only journal that existed in Bihar at that time (in 1893) was
The Bihar Herald, of which the presiding genius was Guru
Prasad Sen, an acknowledged leader of the Patna Bar and a
prominent figure in the public life of Bihar for about a quarter of
a century.
In the introduction to his book, Some Eminent Bihari Con¬
temporaries, Sinha wrote : “To the talents and energies of Mr.
Sen, Bihar owes not a little in the development of her public life....
At the same time, it must be added, in the interest of truth, that
with the best of motives and intentions, he was most vehemently
opposed to the consideration of any scheme contemplating the
establishment of Bihar as separate provincial administration”. Under
the guidance and influence of Sen, not only the leading members
of the Bengali community in Bihar, but even in Bengal, and the
Calcutta press were strongly opposed to the idea, and the only
word that they could bring themselves to utter in connection with
proposal was “preposterous”. However, in spite of such an organised
and vigilant opposition, young Sinha took up the cudgels on behalf
of the Biharis and ultimately, succeeded in his mission.
The first task to which he addressed himself was to organize
the publication of a journal through which he could propagate his
idea and push on the movement. Here too, he had to fight against
heavy odds. In the beginning, he did not get much support even
form most of the prominent Biharis who, though convinced of the
desirability, or even the necessity of separation, felt, perhaps honestly,
that it was beyond the range of practical politics. The only man
who, according to Sinha, warmly espoused the cause and extended
to him in right earnest the hand of cooperation and help was
Mahesh Narayana. Nand Kishore Lai of Gaya and Rai Bahadur
Krishna Sahay also lent their support to him. About the latter Sinha
said, “He made me feel that he did so, influenced more by ethical
considerations of pursuing a noble ideal than from any strong
conviction that the scheme was realizable.”
36 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

Bihar’s Renaissance

Mahesh Narayan was, however, made of different stuff. He

was a close student of public affairs and was intimately in touch
with Indian problems in general and with those of Bihar and Bengal
in particular. He wielded a ready pen; he could write in the English
language with rare skill and facility. On problems of Indian nation¬
alism, his views tallied most with those of Sinha. In him, therefore,
Sinha found just the man he wanted as his friend and collaborator.
So, with Mahesh Narayan as editor, a weekly journal, called The
Bihar Times, was founded in January 1894. With its birth may be
said to have begun the period of renaissance in Bihar.
At first, the opponents of the separation movement tried to
ignore the paper and treat it with contempt, taking no notice of
its writings , which they characterised as “Silly vapourings”. In the
course of a year, however, it had established itself and had come
to be regarded as an accredited exponent of Bihari public opinion.
From 1894 to August 1907, Sinha and Mahesh Narayan worked
in fullest cooperation and carried on an active propaganda in
support of the movement. Mahesh Narayan passed away in 1907.
Though he did not live to see the creation of Bihar as a separated
province, yet, in a way, he did witness the beginnings of success
as he had been able to inculcate in the rising generation of Bihar
the idea for which he lived and worked. Sinha was left alone to
carry on the work till the goal was achieved. By this time, the
movement had gained enough momentum and Sinha himself had
come to occupy a prominent and influential position both at the
Bar and in public life. He had gained enough strength to success¬
fully weather the storms that came in the way.
Here, we may interrupt the story just to explain the doubt as
to how such great men of culture as Sinha and Mahesh Narayan
could allow themselves to “indulge” in a kind of politics which was
regarded by many, even by Bihari at the time, as “betraying an
undue and undesirable spirit of provincial assertiveness”. Referring
to this subject, in the course of a life-sketch of Mahesh Narayan
, in his book Some Eminent Bihari Contemporaries, Sinha writes:
CREATOR OF MODERN BIHAR 37

“Mahesh Narayan and I strenuously urged the develop¬

ment, in the first instance, of what the late Lord Balfour
had happily called “subordinate patriotism”, akin to what
all Scotchmen as such felt for Scotland, while sharing in
a common patriotism (with the English and the Welsh) as
Britons; and, in the second place, we urged that Biharis
should ungrudgingly cooperate with the Indians of the
other provinces in pursuit of the common aims and aspi¬
ration. Our common ideal was also based on the lines of
American patriotism—first the State and then the Repub¬
lic.”
Sinha and Mahesh Narayan never preached anything which
might in any way affect the integrity of India; they were too
patriotic to do so or be a party to any such thing. They wanted
the people, both Hindus and Muslims, to have an awareness of
being Biharis, but at the same time feeling bound with the people
of other provinces for purposes of general advancement of the
country as a whole. They did not see any conflict between the
two ideals. On the country, they felt that the latter pre-supposed
the former, since the only type of nationality which could be
evolved in so extensive and diversified a region as India would be
‘Federal’. Such a concept prevailed in most of the States of the
world, which had composite populations.
Now, to resume the story of the movement conducted by Sinha
and Mahesh Narayan, in the words of Sinha “the battle raged loud
and long; and the Bihar Times carried on a strenuous struggle
against heavy odds. The enthusiasm roused in Bihar was tremen¬
dous. The movement caught on the spread like wild fire.”
In 1894, a proposal for the transfer of the Chittagong
Commissionership of Bengal to the Assam administration, with a
view to give relief to the Bengal administration, was under the
consideration of the Government of India. Sinha and Mahesh
Narayan grabbed this opportunity to analyse and dissect the pro¬
posal in the columns of the Bihar Times and point out that the
proposed transfer would give no adequate relief to the Bengal
administration, whereas the separation of Bihar would offer an
ideal solution of the difficulty. The above proposal, however, did
38 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

not bear any fruit at that time; it remained in suspended animation

for some years. The idea of separation of Bihar from Bengal
received strong support from the Pioneer of Allahabad, and it was
popularly believed that the articles on the subjects were written
by Sir Antony (afterwards Lord) Mac-Donell—the most distin¬
guished civil servant of the time.
Finding that the movement was forging, the Lieutenant-Gov¬
ernor of Bengal, Sir Alexander Mackenzie, thought of countering
it by ridiculing the idea and emphatically asserting (in the course
of his reply to the welcome address presented to him by the Gaya
Municipality and the Gaya District Board) that no Secretary of
State would ever sanction the establishment of another local
government in northern India. After this statement by the Lieu¬
tenant-Governor, many people began doubting the wisdom of the
agitation for the separation. But Sinha, Mahesh Narayan, Nand
Kishore Lai and Krishna Sahay remained undaunted and persisted
in their campaign, though for some years they had to lie low and
bide their time.
In 1903, the proposal for the transfer of Chittagong and Dacca
divisions of East Bengal was revived when Lord Curzon’s Gov¬
ernment elicited public opinion on the subject. Ultimately, Lord
Curzon rejected the above proposal, and instead, transferred no
less two-third of Bengal proper to Assam. This was known as the
"Partition of Bengal’, which became an accomplished fact on
October 16,1905. Against this measure, a ranging agitation started
in Bengal; in fact, the whole of Bengal had gone in to turmoil over
this partition scheme. It gave birth to what is called the “Terrorist
Movement” in Bengal.
The sponsors of the movement for separation of Bihar from
Bengal now felt more and more convinced of the rightness of their
cause. Their conviction grew stronger every day that time was
on their side and their position would, in due course, be fully
vindicated.
A few months later, i.e. in 1906, Sinha and Mahesh Narayan
brought out a pamphlet with a very well-written and well-argued
text. It was entitled “The Partition of Bengal or the Separation of
Bihar”. It achieved a large circulation in India and Britain and
CREATOR OF MODERN BIHAR 39

greatly influenced public opinion on the subject. But, Babu Mahesh

Narayan’s sad and untimely death in 1907 gave a rude shock to
the movement. But, soon, it was joined by statwarts like Sir All
Imam, Mr. Hasan Imam, Sir Mohammed Fakhruddin, Rai Bahadur
Brahmadeo Narayan and others. The movement gathered strength
rapidly till it gained its end. The creation of Bihar into a separate
administrative unit became an accomplished fact only four years
later.
After the partition of Bengal, greater attention began to be paid
to Bihar in the reconstituted province of Bengal. For the first time,
Mr. Sharfuddin, a Bihari, was elevated to the Bench of the Calcutta
High Court in 1907. Sir Ali Imam was the first Bihari to be
appointed Standing Counsel to the Government of India in the
Calcutta High Court in 1908. Out of the four seats assigned to
the representatives of the province of ‘New Bengal’ in the Im¬
perial Legislative Council, two were captured by Bihans, one of
which was filled by Sachchidananda Sinha himself. Later, Sir Ali
Imam was appointed to succeed Sir S.P. Sinha (later Lord Sinha)
as Law Member to the Government of India. In that capacity, he
greatly helped in the creation of the separate province of Bihar.

Inside Story

In this connection, the following extract from Sinha’s book,

Some Eminent Bihari Contemporaries, will be of much interest:
“In the autumn of 1911, I was at Simla for the Imperial
Legislative Council session, and was staying with Sir Ali Imam at
the ‘Inveram’. His Majesty the king had already announced his
intention of coming to India during the cold weather to hold a
Darbar at Delhi at which to proclaim his accession as the Emperor
of India. The whole of India was astir at the time and all classes
and communities were looking forward to the gi ant of boons on
the occasion of the Darbar.
“One day, Mohammad Ali came to see us and had a long talk
on various subjects. Among other things, he said that it would be
a good thing if the King declared Delhi to be the permanent capital
of the Indian Empire. At this, Sir Ali Imam suddenly grew excited
40 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

and said that it was a mad and foolish proposal which the British
Government would not even consider seriously, as Delhi was a
dilapidated and decayed place, past all restoration and redemp¬
tion.”
After Mohammad Ali had gone, Sinha told Sir Ali Imam that
there was no occasion for him to get excited. It was just possible
the question might be considered in connection with the territorial
changes in eastern India, consequent upon the popularly-expected
easing of the great unrest caused by the partition of Bengal. “At
this,” Sinha goes on to narrate, “Sir Ali Imam looked hard at me,
smiled and said : ‘ You think you are very clever; are you?” I said,
‘I think, I am.’ He continued: ‘You will live to laugh at the wrong
side of the mouth’, but he added quickly, ‘get a couple of copies
of your pamphlet on the separation of Bihar, I would like to go
through it once again’. Some days later, when giving him copies
of the pamphlet, I said, ‘I earnestly hope that while you are the
Law Member, the Biharis will receive at the hand of the king the
greatest boon they desire and deserve—a province of their own’.
He laughed and said, ‘You are an inveterate dreamer; well, you
may go on dreaming’.
After the Council session was over, when Sinha was thinking
of returning to Patna, Sir Ali Imam said to him: ‘Assuming that
there are to be any territorial changes, you do not and cannot
expect that Bihar will be endowed with an Executive Council, for
neither Agra and Oudh, nor the Punjab, has got any such institution.
If ever I brought up a proposal like that I would be laughed at
for my fool-hardiness by my colleagues.”
Sinha, there upon, told him that he should urge it on the ground
that in the reconstituted Bengal, in which Bihar was predominant
partner, there was already an Executive Council when their prov¬
ince had a separate administration. Thereupon Sir Ali said : “Well,
that is easier said than done”. In reply, Sinha told him that he would
think over the matter and see if he could assist him.
Accordingly, he looked into the various books on Constitutional
Law and felt satisfied that the distinction was so subtle and
technical that it would not be discovered easily, if at all, by the
civilian and military members of the Governor General’s Council
CREATOR OF MODERN BIHAR 41

who very probably would construe the expression ‘Govemorship-

in-Councirs or the ‘Lieutenant-Governor with a Legislative Coun¬
cil only, and not and Executive Council. He communicated this
view to Sir Ali Amam, and told him that instead of making a formal
proposal for an Executive Council for Bihar, if that matter at all
came up for consideration, he should make it a point to use in all
his notes on the subjects the expression ‘Lieutenant with his
colleagues without eliciting any controversy. Sir Ali, however,
doubted whether his colleagues were so dull-witted, but concurred
with Sinha that the experiment was worth trying, if ever the
question came up for consideration. Sir Ali strictly stuck to his oath
of secrecy by not at all disclosing to Sinha that the question was
at that very time being actually considered almost daily by the
Governor-General and his Executive Councillors—and that too
most seriously. Sinha too, though suspecting it, did not, for obvious
reasons, press the matter any further.
At last, on the memorable day in the history of modem Bihar—
the 12th of December, 1911—His Majesty the King Emperor
announced at the Delhi Darbar the formation of Bihar and Orissa
as a separate administrative unit, under a ‘ Lieutenant-Go vemor-
in-CounciL.
Continuing the story, Sinha says that the implication of the term
used in the King Emperor’s declaration was not realised at the
time by the distinguished audience, not even by some eminent
lawyers. A few days later, when the king was laying the foundation
of New Delhi, Sinha was standing next to the late Sir Pramada
Charan Banerjee, the distinguished Judge of the Allahabad High
Court, who said to him : “Hearty congratulations; so at least you
have got a province of your own! Sinha repled : “Yes thanks, and
an Executive Council to boot.” “Nonsense”, said Sir Pramada
Charan Baneijee, “you have got a Lieutenant Governor and a
Legislative Council just as we have in the United Provinces”.
Sinha, thereupon said : “Judge, you are for once mistaken. Bihar
has got a Lieutenant-Governor with an Executive Council, and
also, of course, a Lieutenant Council”. “Where did you get that
from? I did not hear the King say so” Sir Pramada Charan asked.
Sinha explained : “The King declared the Bihar and Orissa were
42 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

to be under a Lieutenant-Govemor-in-Council, which, as a term

of art, means an Executive Council.” “Is that so?”, said he and
added “Well, I confess, it did not strike my mind that way”. Many
people were similarly mistaken at that time and when Sinha told
the story of Justice Banerjee to Sir Ali Imam, the later said that
he felt highly gratified at the success of the plan suggested by him
(Sinha) for securing an Executive Council for Bihar and Orissa.”
Such is the story of about seventeen years of hard toil by Sinha
and his colleagues. His principal collaborator, Mahesh Narayan,
of course, had died in the midst of the struggle and did not live
to see the fruits of his labour. Sinha, however, lived long enough
to contribute his mite to the growth and prosperity of Bihar, both
as Finance Minister in its Government, and as Vice-Chancellor of
the Patna University. His writings and speeches, as a journalist
and legislator, were an important contribution to the political and
social thought of Bihar. He was widely respected, and he guided
and influenced many individuals and institutions by his sound and
mature advice as well as financial help. His claim to be described
as “a maker of modem Bihar” thus lies in his untiring work and
selfless service.
 The Journalist and Scholar
S achchidananda Sinha was, indeed, a versatile person. He dis
tinguished himself equally as a lawyer, a journalist, a politician
and a publicman. By profession, he was a lawyer, but journalism
and politics came to him as if by instinct. If one were to ask if
he was a lawyer first, the answer will be that he was first a
journalist and publicman, and only next a lawyer.
He neither took to journalism as a profession, nor cared to
make any money out of it. Although he used to write for a large
number of newspapers and periodicals, both foreign and Indian,
it was all inspired by the labour of love or was done to serve some
definite public purpose. He proudly used to say that, in his whole
lifetime, he had earned only three guineas for an article contributed
by him to the Manchester Guardian, and that to wholly unso¬
licited. As the Amrita Bazar Patrika of Calcutta once very aptly
observed : “The law had given him a fortune, while journalism had
made him a prodigal, but not like the prodigal in the story who
repents and returns; he had spent very large sums in conducting
and maintaining several journals at his own cost. Journalism had
been his hobby; it had not been a trade with him, yielding the
producer’s surplus. On the contrary, he spent from his own pocket
on practising journalism very much more than any professional
journalist could ever expect to earn in his lifetime”.
In was indeed a very costly hobby, but one which gave him
satisfaction and happiness. Sinha actively took part in promoting
and even conducting, for a number of years, several newspapers
—both weeklies and dailies. Among them were the Indian People
and Leader of Allahabad, the Bihar Times, the Biharee and the
Searchlight of Patna.
The Indian People was started by him at Allahabad in 1903.
After six years of publication as a weekly, it was incorporated with
44 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

the Leader, which had started publication as a daily from Allahabad

in October 1909. Sinha was it founder-director. C.Y. Chintamani,
who later distinguished himself as a front-rank journalist and able
Editor of the Leader, was brought by Sinha to Allahabad in 1903
to assist him in bringing out the Indian People. Chintamani be¬
came a publicman of considerable influence and importance, and
was a Minister in the Government of the United Provinces during
the period of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. It may be said
that Chintamani was his find and a valuable ‘gift’ by him to the
United Provinces.
Again, at Patna, Sinha was largely responsible for organising
the daily Biharee in 1912, when Bihar was constituted into a
separate province. It has already been indicated how Sinha, in
collaboration with Mahesh Narayan, had started the Bihar Times
in 1894, in order to agitate for the separation of Bihar from Bengal.
Later, the Bihar Times was converted into the weekly Biharee and
then incorporated with the daily Biharee in 1912.
The daily Biharee ceased publication in 1916 and the urgent
need for an independent organ of public opinion was very keenly
felt by the people. Sinha, therefore, began work for starting such
a newspaper. On August 15, 1918, he brought into being the
Searchlight at Patna, with the active help and collaboration of
some of his eminent colleagues at the bar who included Syed
Hasan Imam, P.R. Das, P.K. Sen, Dr. Rajendra Prasad and others.
It was first, published as a bi-weekly. After two years, its peri¬
odicity was increased to thrice a week. Later it became a daily.
The Searchlight had a stormy career during the days of the
Non-cooperation and Civil Disobedience movements. It made a
very substantial contribution to the success of these movements.
The advancement and the welfare of the people of the province
also owe much to this newspaper. Sinha’s help and guidance
always remained available to the Searchlight. It would be reveal¬
ing no secret that some of the most brilliant and important editorial
which caused considerable stir and sensation, both among the
people and in the Government, had come from his pen. He, indeed,
possessed the unique gift of handling delicate and contentious
topics without getting the paper or its editor into trouble with the
THE JOURNALIST AND SCHOLAR 45

Government. At the request of the Maharajadhiraj of Darbhanga,

Sinha also acted as the Managing Director of the Indian Nation
(Patna) for some time.

The Hindustan Review

His mam journalistic activity, however, was concentrated in

editing the famous Hindustan Review for about 45 years. A brief
history of the Hindustan Review would therefore, be relevant
here.
Sinha, who had settled down to practise at Allahabad in 1896,
was appointed secretary of the local Kayastha Pathshala in 1900.
He was also the editor of its monthly English magazine called the
Kayastha Samachar. It had been founded in 1899 as an educa¬
tional magazine by that veteran journalist, Ramanand Chatterjee,
who was then the principal of the Kayastha Pathshala College.
Chatterjee later distinguished himself as the editor of the Modem
Review, which was founded at Allahabad in 1907, and afterwards
moved to Calcutta. Chatterjee conducted the Samachar as a high-
class educational magazine till June 1900, when he relinquished its
charge owing to pressure of work as principal. Sinha was then
called upon by the President of the Pathshala, Govind Prasad, to
take over the responsibility of editing the Samachar. Smha agreed
to do so, but stipulated that he should be given a free hand to
conduct it as a general magazine, recording and reviewing Indian
progress in all spheres of activity. In other words, Sinha made it
a magazine dealing with current political, social and economic
subjects, as also literary and educational.
According to this arrangement, the Samachar appeared in its
new garb in July 1900. In the new issue, the place of honour had
been given to a signed political article, entitled “Sir Anthony
MacDonell and the United Provinces”. This article as written by
Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, who was a rising public figure at the time.
This was followed by several other well-written and thoughtful
articles, editorials and reviews of books.
As Sinha himself had pointed out in the course of an article
written by him in the Hindustan Review of July 1934 (on the
46 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

occasion of the Hindustan Review having completed 35 years of

publication), there was no Indo-English newspaper or periodical
in the United Provinces, except the Advocate of Lucknow, which
was published twice a week, and was edited by that well-known
publicman, Ganga Prasad Verma. The Samachar, though it was
only a monthly, came to fulfil the long-felt need for an organ of
Indian public opinion (as then voiced by the Congress) not only
in the United Provinces, but in the whole of northern India.
The publication of this monthly was enthusiastically welcomed
by all leading publicmen and, in less than two years, it came to
have on its list of contributors almost all the distinguished scholars
and eminent publicists in the country. The Samachar earned a
reputation for being a well-conducted journal, not only in India but
even abroad. It was acknowledged also by the government of the
day as an exponent of sound and progressive Indian public opinion.
This is evident from the fact that it was the only monthly magazine
whose editor had been invited to the Delhi Darbar of 1903. In the
same year, the trustees of the Kayastha Pathshala agreed to
Sinha’s proposal to give to the journal an appropriate and com¬
prehensive name. Its name was changed to Hindustan Review.
In 1904, Gokul Prasad was elected President of the Kayastha
Pathshala. There arose some difference of opinion between him
and Sinha over the policy of the Hindustan Review. Thereupon,
Smha immediately issued the prospectus of a new monthly to be
called the New Hindustan Review. Ultimately, on the intervention
of some common friends, the Kayastha Pathshala authorities trans¬
ferred to him the proprietary rights and goodwill of the Hindustan
Review for a sum of R.s. 1,000 only, which he gladly paid.
For eighteen years, the Hindustan Review continued to be
published from Allahabad under the editorship of Sachchidanada
Sinha. On his appointment as Member of the Bihar and Orissa
Executive Council in 1921, he had to sever his editorial connection
with the Review. He handed over charge to K.C. Mahindra, B.A.
(Cantab), who was then working with the firm of Messrs Martin
& Co, at Calcutta. For the sake of his own convenience, Mahindra
transferred the office of the Hindustan Review from Allahabad
to Calcutta, from where the journal continued to be published till
THE JOURNALIST AND SCHOLAR 47

1926. On the expiry of his term as Member of the Governor’s

Executive Council, Sinha resumed as editor of the Hindustan
Review. From then on, it was published from Patna till a few
months after his death in 1950.
During all these years, Sinha met from his own pocket every
pie of the expenditure incurred on its publication. He never cared
to make it a commercial proposition. In those days, the conditions
were also not very propitious for a journal of the type of the
Hindustan Review to be, financially, a paying proposition. Through¬
out its existence, the journal remained a losing concern, but Sinha
ungrudgingly met the monthly deficit of two to three thousand
rupees from his pocket regularly.
Apart from the recurring financial loss that it involved, the
editing of the Hindustan Review made heavy demands on the time
and energy of the busy lawyer and publicman that Sinha was.
Those who had seen him at work or who had to deal with him
as editor will easily bear testimony to the truth of the observation
made by that veteran journalist, Sant Nihal Singh, a life-long and
intimate friend of Sinha. Nihal Singh said: “He (Sinha) was an
editor in the real sense of the term; he was not content merely
with obtaining articles from various writers of distinction, adding
thereto the pick of the ones received unsolicited and sending all
that he found usable to the press, gleaning casually through the
proofs and calling his job well done”. No, in the words of Sant
Nihal Singh again, “he went over every copy as if with a micro¬
scope. If any facts or figures raised any doubt in his mind, he
looked it up. If it struck him that something vital was missing, he
supplied it himself or made a note of it and asked the author to
do the needful. He would reconstruct clauses, sentences, para¬
graphs and even pages; the articles sent for publication must be
above such foibles. His concept of editorial responsibility would
not permit him to delegate such a function to his staff’. What a
tremendous amount of time and labour all this must have involved
can better be imagined than described. If the Hindustan Review
could achieve distinction of being a high-class journal dealing with
politics, economics, literature and arts, it was due to the hard work
that Sinha put in, and the good deal of time that he devoted to it.
 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA
48

He did immense good to public life by popularising sound

political ideas and disseminating a healthy public opinion on current
controversies through exceedingly well-written and thoughtful articles
on different subjects. The journal stimulate intellectual pursuits
through the medium of its Literary Supplements and Book Review
section. Sinha was once aptly described by some journalist as a
“peer among journalists and a journalist among peers”.
The motto on the first page of every issue of the Hindustan
Review was the following famous lines of William Lloyd Garri¬
son:—
“I will be as harsh as truth and
as uncompromising as justice;
I am in earnest; I will not equivocate;
I will not excuse;
I will not retreat a single inch; and
I will be heard.”
It must be said without any exaggeration that the Hindustan
Review fully lived up to the principal enunciated in the above lines
both in letter and spirit.
Its policy had always been to give fairplay to all, and to offer
a forum for the expression of all points of views by leading
exponents of various shades of opinion. Only the editorial pages
were reserved for such comments as might represent the views
and the policy of the editor of the Hindustan Review. The editorial
policy had always been to take an independent nationalist line not
necessarily identified with any political party.
Sinha’s editorials bore the impress of the clear and independent
thinking of a widely read man. In the words of Sir Sivaswamy Iyer,
“his extensive knowledge of English, his abundant sense of humor
and his literary flair combined to invest his style with a charm of
its own”. He could easily glide form ‘grave to gay’. He not only
preached, but also practised the virtue of sobriety which, he
belived, was a valuable and indispensable aid for adherence to truth
and justice. According to him, truth and justice should be the basic
principles of an honest journalist.
In a controversy, however, when provoked to do so, he could
use with smashing effect his capacity for subtle banter and biting
THE JOURNALIST AND SCHOLAR 49

invective without being vulgar or indecent. He had a prodigious

memory and references used to be at his finger-tips. With such
natural gifts and high intellectual attainments, combined with
capacity for hard and methodical work, it was no wonder that
Sinha could make the Hindustan Review a notable success and
to secure for it distinction as a journal of even international repute.
Sinha had the honour of being invited to represent India at the
International Press Conference organised by the League of Nations
at Geneva in October 1927. He had a very soft comer for jour¬
nalists, particularly junior struggling journalists, who could always
depend upon him for help in times of need. As a matter of fact,
those who sought his help were never disappointed.

Sachchidananda Sinha Library

It may be appropriate to note here that the books received for

review in the Hindustan Review, along with those purchased or
received as complimentary copies, made up the nucleus of the
magnificent ‘Sachchidananda Sinha Library’. This Library is housed
in a large building at Patna, constructed by him at a cost of over
Rs. 1,50,000. He made a gift of the Library to the nation in 1924.
Since then, it has expanded considerably and stands today as a
fitting monuments to his love of books and scholarship. In this way,
he did not leave it to others to erect a memorial to him after his
death. He did it himself in his own life-time and in such a splendid
manner.
The imposing building, housing the Shrimati Radhika Sinha
Institute and Sachchidananda Sinha Library, was constructed in
pursuance of the wishes of his wife, Shrimati Radhika Sinha. It
was her wish that the large collection of Sinha’s books should find
place in a suitable building and it should be made over to a public
trust. The trust was created with a generous an princely donation
of about Rs. 3 lakh for the proper management of the library and
the maintenance of the building. Situated in a central place, very
close to the Patna Museum , it has a big hall which was originally
intended to serve the purpose of a Town Hall. This hall is now
used as reading room because the old room could not accommo-
 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA
50

date the increasing number of people who visited every evening

to read the large number of newspapers and periodicals in the
Library. There are research rooms and reference rooms, which
are well stocked with books and old files of important newspapers
and periodicals, both Indian and foreign. The Library now has a
collection of over one lakh volumes of Hindi, English, Urdu and
Sanskrit books on various subjects.
Sinha developed a keen interest in the collection of books very
early in life. His interest was of a kind very different from that
of many others who collect books and even build libraries, just to
show off their importance or status in society. In the Sinha Library
are to be found very few books, if any, without copious red and
blue pencil markings on their pages. This shows that most of them
had been carefully studied by Sinha.
In his younger days, Sinha was associated with the magnificent
Khuda Baksh Oriental Library at Patna. He became its acting
secretary when Khan Bahadur Khuda Baksh Khan, its founder,
left Patna to serve as Chief Justice of the Hyderabad State. Sinha
was also connected with the administration of the Imperial Library
at Calcutta from 1929 to 1932, and again from 1935 to 1944. He
was also associated with the Indian Library Movement. It was at
his instance that the fourth session of the All-India Library
Conference was held at Patna. The Reception Committee was
headed by him and the Conference was presided over by Sir John
Sergeant. As Vice-Chancellor of the Patna University, he introduced
several improvements in the University Library, which was
considerably enriched by the large addition of books during his term
of office.
 The Legislator
D uring the first decade of the twentieth century, the Legislative
Council—both Provincial and Central—had been functioning
under the Indian Councils Act of 1892. The regulations framed
by the Govemor-General-in-Council inter alia provided that the
non-official seats should be filled up on the recommendation of
such public bodies as Municipalities, District Boards, Chambers
of Commerce, Universities, etc. In 1907, Sinha was a candidate
from the District Boards Constituency of Patna Division which
comprised the district of North Bihar also. The District Boards >
in North Bihar were dominated at that time by European officials
and indigo planters, who regarded Sinha as fire-brand. They did
not like his advocating such a ‘revolutionary’ measure as the
separation of the judiciary from the executive. They had, there¬
fore, all combined to keep him out of the Council. Finding that he
had no chace of succeeding against his rival candidate, who was
a favourite of officialdom, he quietly withdrew. Soon, thereafter,
he started a strong agitation for freeing the District Boards from
official control. In course of time, he succeeded in achieving this
objective.
Later, on the introduction of the Morley-Mmto Reforms in
1910, Sinha was elected to the Imperial Legislative Council as a
representative of the non-official members of the Bengal Legis¬
lative Council. The Indian Council Act of 1909 had made some
important changes in the composition of the Legislative Councils.
The number of ‘additional’ members of the Imperial Legislative
Council was raised to a maximum of sixty, of whom not more
than twenty-eight were to be officials. Five members, three of
whom were to represent certain specified communities, were to
be nominated by the Governor-General. Of the remaining twenty-
seven seats, thirteen were to be filled by the non-official members
52 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

of the Provincial Legislative Councils; fourteen seats were to be

filled up by elected members, representing certain special constitu¬
encies, like landholders in seven provinces, Muslims in five prov¬
inces, and the remaining two by the Calcutta and the Bombay
Chambers of Commerce.
In the Provincial Legislative Councils, the numbers of “addi¬
tional” members was raised to a maximum of fifty for all provinces,
except Burma and the Punjab, where the number was fixed at 30.
It was so arranged that the elected members might always be in
a minority as against the combination of official and nominated
non-official members. In Bengal, however, there was clear ma¬
jority of elected members, but this was more nominal than real,
since four of the elected members were representatives of the
European community. The other non-official members were elected
by groups of local bodies, landholders, trade associations, and
universities. The Muslims were conceded separate representation
in Madras, Bombay, Bengal, the United Provinces, East Bengal
and Assam.
The members of the Bengal Legislative Council were to elect
two members as their representative in the Imperial Legislative
Council. Sinha contested the election against Maharajadhiraj Sir
Rameshwar Singh of Damhanga, Maharaja Ravaneshwar Prasad
Singh of Gidhaur, the Maharaja of Kasimbazar, Maharaja Pradyot
Kumar Tagore and Bhupendra Nath Basu. To the surprise of all,
the four Maharajas were defeated. Sinha and Bhupendra Nath
Basu were declared elected.
In the Imperial Legislative Council, Sinha had the good fortune
of working under the guidance and inspiration of Gopal Krishna
Gokhale, and learning a good deal at his feet. Sinha’s closely-
reasoned speeches, in a language at once clear and unequivocal,
and supported by authoritative facts and figures, soon enabled him
to establish a reputation a$ an able publicman and parliamentarian.
By reason, however, of the maintenance of the official majority
in the legislatures, it was impossible for the non-official represen¬
tatives to carry any point, be it ever so sound or well-reasoned.
Participating, however, in the Budget debates, during the years
1910,1911 and 1912, Sinha, in the course of his speeches, pleaded
THE LEGISLATOR 53

strongly for better financial arrangements between the Govern¬

ment of India and the Provincial Governments so that the latter
might be in possession of larger founds for expenditure on works
of tangible benefit to people. He accused the India Government
of “shearing the provincial sheep, leaving it shivering in the cold”.
He declared that so long as the Imperial Government continued
to claim the lion’s share of the revenues raised by the Provincial
Government, there was very little chance of improvement in the
condition of the people. Under the circumstances, he said, the
administration of the provinces could hardly make any satisfactory
progress.
Another point that he emphasised was the urgent need for “just
apportionment of the expenses on the British troops stationed in
this country, between the Home and the India Governments”. It
was indeed a serious blot, he observed, that the army and the police
should receive so much more attention than education as to have
absorbed between them, during the last two years, not less than
25 times the money spent on the latter—Rs. 397 crore as against
Rs. 15 crore.
The other subject on which he held strong views was the need
for larger employment of Indians in the public services, and for
making recruitment to the judiciary from the legal profession. He
strongly supported the demand for throwing open the commis¬
sioned ranks of the army to Indians.
Sinha also give his full support to the resolution moved by G.K.
Gokhale (on February 20, 1910) demanding an end to the recruit¬
ment in British India of indentured labour for Natal in South Africa.
In his moving speech, he threw into the face of the Government
of India the strong and indignant words used by some distinguished
British statesmen, such as, Lord Curzon, Lord Lansdowne, Sir
George Hamilton and others condemning the inhuman treatment
of indentured labour in Natal, South Africa.
Sinha’s interest in the fate of Indians in the colonies found
expression also in the debate on the resolution moved by Surendranath
Baneijee in February 1920, for the appointment of a committee to
examine the scheme of colonisation in British Guyana. Sinha moved
an amendment to enlarge the scope of the proposed committee so
54 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

as to include in its terms of reference the examination of the status

and position of Indians in all the British colonies.
In 1913, there was to be a new election for the Imperial
Legislative Council. The people of Orissa (which then formed part
of the Province of Bihar and Orissa), wished an Oriya to be elected
since none had till then been elected to the Imperial Council. Sinha,
therefore, voluntary withdraw in favour of Madusudan Das.
In 1919, however, a vacancy having occurred, Sinha was
returned unopposed to the Imperial Legislative Council. The nomi¬
nation paper of his only rival, Ajit Prasad Sinha, had been rejected
on some technical ground. He continued to be a member of the
Council till its dissolution on the introduction of the Montagu-
Chelmsford Reforms. This was the time when the Jallianwala
Bagh massacre had taken place and brutal atrocities perpetrated
on the people of the Punjab. Sinha took a prominent part in the
debates on the subject in the Imperial Council and his speeches
were lauded all over the country for their onslaught against the
official of the Punjab Government and those of the Government
of India.
He subjected the Punjab Indemnity Bill to a very scathing, but
sound and well-reasoned, criticism. At one stage, in sheer despera¬
tion, Sinha made the telling observation at the cussedness of the
official members :
“Whatever weight of reason there may be on our side, any
opposition to a Government measure is bound to be, so
far as we are concerned, infructuous, because, when the
Government bring in a measure, there are behind the front
Government Benches the serried ranks and the solid phalanx
of our officials friends, 35 strong, who sit here for the
purpose of supporting the Government in any measure the
latter may like to bring in.
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs but to vote and die.
What is the good in a Council like, this for any one of us
to try to persuade the Government? Once they have made
their mind that a measure has to be got through the
THE LEGISLATOR 55

Council, the old shibboleth of the responsibility for main¬

taining law and order being on the shoulders of the Gov¬
ernment is trotted out; and there are those 35 valiant
soldiers to vote down any opposition that we may have
to offer”.
Yet, if he placed before the Council certain observations on
Bill, it was not, as he explained, with the purposes of carrying on
any infructuous opposition, but simply to show that Government
did not deserve the "‘moral assent” of the non-official members
which they had asked for the Bill.
Among other subjects on which Smha spoke during the years
1919-1921 were: the Seditious Meetings Bill, the military policy of
the Government of India, and the demand for the establishment
of an Executive Council for the United Provinces of Agra and
Oudh. He particularly distinguished himself in the debate on the
Punjab Enquiry Commission and the Punjab Indemnity Bill by his
bold and courageous stand and the manner in which he gave back
to the officials what they deserved, and reduced to shreds their
contentions and arguments.

Elected Deputy President

The Government of India Act, 1919, had laid down that, for
the first four years, the President of the Central Legislative Assembly
was to be a nominee of the Governor-General; in the case of the
provincial legislatures, he was to be nominated by the Governors
or the Lieutenant-Governors. After the four-year period, the
President was to be chosen by the members of various legislatures.
The legislature bodies were, however, free to elect, from the very
beginning, their Deputy Presidents.
Consequently, Sir Frederick Whyte was nominated by the
Governor-General as the first President of the newly-constituted
Central Legislative Assembly. The Deputy President had to be
elected by the members of the Assembly. Sachchidananda Sinha,
who had been elected member of the Central Legislative Assembly,
was asked by Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and other friends to be a
candidate for election to that office. His others two rivals were
56 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

Sir Deva Prasad Sarbadhikari from Bengal, and Sir Hari Singh
Gour from the Central Provinces and Berar. The Assembly had
a large block of officials and non-officials nominated by the
Governor-General. Every candidate, therefore, tried his best to
secure the Government’s support.
Fortunately for Sinha, Sir William Vincent, then Home Member
(who was a Bihar civilian) had known him for a ling time. When
he was posted as a Sessions Judge in Bihar, Sinha had appeared
before him as a lawyer in many cases. Later, as a non-official
member of the old Legislative Council, he had even crossed
swords with him on several subjects under discussion. Somehow,
Sir William decided to support Sinha and was able to get for him
the solid votes of the nominated officials and non-officials. Sinha
was, therefore, easily elected by an overwhelming majority, having
secured 67 votes against 22 secured by Sir Deva Prasad
Sarbadhikari, and 24 by Sir Hari Singh Gour
His election was widely welcomed both by the press and the
people. Sir Frederick Whyte had been particularly kind to him
inasmuch as he arranged that he (Sinha) should preside over the
Assembly every day after the luncheon recess till tea-time. This
enabled him to acquire practical experience of the work. By his
genial temper and ready wit, combined with wide political outlook
and a non-partisan attitude, Sinha was able to win the appreciation
who had occasion to come into contact with him officially.
Sinha was appointed member of the Executive Council of the
Governor of Bihar in May 1921, largely at the initiative of Lord
S.P.Sinha, who was then the Governor of the province. He, there¬
fore, resigned his membership of the Central Assembly and took
over as member of the Executive Council from Rai Bahadur
Krishna Sahay who had been unfortunately taken seriously ill. The
latter passed away a few months later.

President of Bihar Council

It was indeed an incompatible combination—the Presidentship

of the Legislative Council and the membership of the Governor’s
Executive Council. Sinha was called upon to discharge the duties
THE LEGISLATOR 57

of the two offices simultaneously for more than a year. It was a

unique experiment which had never been tried either in this country
or any other with a parliamentary system of government. If it
proved a success on all accounts, it was entirely due to the
extraordinary qualities of head and heart which Sachchidananda
Sinha possessed.
The story of how it came about makes interesting reading.
Montagu, then the Secretary of State for India, was keenly inter¬
ested in the working of the constitution which was associated with
his name and that of the then Viceroy and Governor-General, Lord
Chelmsford. He thought that the success of the constitution de¬
pended largely upon the relationship that might be established
between the Legislative Council in each province and the person
selected to hold the office of President. In the course of his
despatch, dated December 23, 1920, he had laid down :
‘The first President of a Council is not to be regarded as
an official in the accepted use of the term. He will be an
official of a kind hitherto unknown in the Indian hierarchy.
I earnestly trust, therefore, that the Government, the
Presidents, and the Councillors alike will realise that what¬
ever walk of life the President may be chosen from, the
moment he assumes office he ceases to be an officer of
the Government. It will be the duty of the President so
to conduct himself as to favor neither the Government nor
the opponents of the Government; to oppose the desire of
even the majority when, in his judgment, that desire is in
conflict with the interest of the Council as a whole; and
to do his best to secure fair treatment, by the Council, of
minorities or individuals when they appear to him to have
reason and justice on their side. In short I took to the time
when the President will be regarded as a person to whom,
if in any case a personality of unquestioned impartiality is
required for the settlement of any difficulty, all parties will
naturally and without hesitation resort”.
Montagu had further made it clear that he regarded it as
impossible to combine with it any direct employment under the
Executive Government. “Any attempt to utilize the services of the
58 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

President, as part-time employee of the Government, will be in¬

compatible with the proper discharge of his obligation to the
Council”. Yet, in the case of Sachchidananda Sinha, what hap¬
pened was exactly contrary to the instruction laid down by the
Secretary of State!
Lord S.P. Sinha was then the Governor of the Province of
Bihar and Orissa, and there were three members in his Executive
Council. He was unwilling to appoint anyone as President on a
high salary for, in his view, the Province was too poor to afford
to pay for the service of an additional high officer, while obviously,
it was not possible to secure the service of any qualified person
to work as honorary President.
At the same time, Sachchidananda Sinha had moved a reso¬
lution in the Imperial Legislative Assembly to reduce the strength
of the Executive Council from three to two, as was the case in
all other major provinces, except of course, in the three Presiden¬
cies of Bengal, Bombay and Madras. The resolution was carried,
and after that the Government announced that they would recom¬
mend to the Secretary of State to accept the proposal so that when
the senior member of the Bihar and Orissa Executive Council
retired, the vacancy caused would not be filled up, and in that
way the strength of the Executive Council would be automatically
reduced.
Lord Sinha felt happy over the success of the above resolution
of Sinha, but there was no immediate solution of his problem. In
the course of a private conversation, the Governor was belived
to have once told Sinha that, as administrative head of the Gov¬
ernment, he found it extremely difficult to act up to Montagu’s
advice to appoint a President on Rs. 3,000 a month in a province
where the land revenue was inelastic, and the revenue from excise
was undependable on account of the Non-cooperation Movement.
Thereupon, Sachchidananda Sinha asked him whether it was open
to him to act against Montagu’s despatch on the subjects. In reply,
the Governor said that he proposed to write to Montagu telling him
that, for special reasons, Bihar and Orissa could not afford to
appoint a high-salaried President. Sinha then suggested that, in that
case, he might utilise for the post of President the services of the
THE LEGISLATOR 59

senior member of the Executive Council, though that would be

clearly going against the principles laid down by Montagu. Sinha
had little expected at the time that his suggestion would be ac¬
cepted, and that one day he himself would be called upon to
combine in himself the two functions of the President of the
Council and the member of the Executive Council.
Lord Sinha pursued the suggestion made by Sachchidananda
Sinha, and ultimately succeeded in appointing the senior member
of his Executive Council, Sir Walter Maude, to take up the work
of the President of the Legislative Council, in addition to his duties
as member of the Executive Council. Sir Walter retired in April
1921.
Shortly thereafter, the other member of the Executive Council,
Rai Bahadur Krishna Sahay, went on leave for four months on
grounds of ill-health. Sachchidananda Sinha was appointed as a
temporary member in his place and was also called upon to act
as President of the Legislative Council in place of Sir Walter
Maude. So, in the July session of Council, Sinha took his seat, not
on the Government Benches as member of the Executive Council,
but in the presidential chair. He continued in this capacity till
November 1922.
It may not be out of place here to recall an interesting episode,
in view of the fact that the non-official member involved in it (Nirsu
Narayan Sinha) was himself, some years later, elected as the
President of Bihar Legislative Council. They very first important
ruling that Sachchidananda Sinha was called upon to give was in
connection with the procedure in the Indian legislature. The non¬
official member from Saran, (N.N.Smha), had made a certain
casual remark which was held to be unparliamentary by the
President, and as such he was asked to withdraw it. The member,
thereupon, said that he would rather withdraw from the House than
withdraw his remark. To this, the President replied : “The choice
is his and he takes the responsibility for his action”. The member
then withdrew from the House.
Next day, when the member took his seat in the Council, the
President said : “The hon’ble member evidently thought yesterday
that by withdrawing from the Council Chamber himself, he would
 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA
60

be imposing upon himself the penalty prescribed under the rules.

My ruling is that in taking that view of the matter, he was mistaken
and the provisions of Section 32 have not been so far complied
with. As he himself withdraw from the Council Chamber yester¬
day, he gave no opportunity to me to enforce this particular
provision, which is, in my opinion, absolutely necessary for the
maintenance of discipline in the House. This being the first op¬
portunity on which I can enforce the rule, I, now, acting under the
powers vested in me under Section 32, call upon the hon’ble
member for the sake of the dignity of the House to either withdraw
the remarks he made and to express regret for having disobeyed
the ruling of the Chair, or, if he does not wish to do that—and he
is quite at liberty to take his own course in this particular matter—
to be deprived of his right for the day. I have no alternative in the
latter case but to ask him to withdraw from the deliberations of
the House for today. This is my ruling and it is not open to
discussion”.
The member thereupon said : “Then I may take it that I am
not even entitled to state the facts upon which this ruling is based
or upon the expression which the hon’ble President has used that
I had the voice in the matter to withdraw. And it that is not so,
then may I ask if I am entitled to say anything in my defence”.
The President: “The hon’ble member is not entitled on a point
of order to make any speech, but as he has raised the point again,
I shall once more state to the House that the view taken by the
hon’ble member for Saran is not correct, because he said: “I would
rather withdraw from the House than withdraw the remarks’. My
reply to that was that the choice was his and he would assume
responsibility for his action. Thus, it was clear that there was
nothing said at the time about any penalty, such as the Section
under consideration contemplates. I now once again give the
hon’ble member the opportunity that if he cares to accept my ruling
that he has offended against the dignity of the House, than he will,
as befitting a gentleman of education and culture and a member of
the Legislature, withdraw the unparliamentary remark and express
his regret for the defiance of the authority of the Chair or, if he shall
not do so, withdraw from the House for the rest of the day”.
THE LEGISLATOR 61

The member, thereupon, withdraw from the House.

This incident may appear to be very insignificant today, but
it naturally evoked considerable interest and even criticism in the
press. Sinha’s view, however, was generally upheld, particularly
by Sir Frederick Whyte, the President of the Imperial Legislative
Assembly. It only shows how strict Sinha was in enforcing dis¬
cipline and maintaining decorum in the House, being always con¬
scious of the fact that it was given to him to introduce and establish
the best parliamentary traditions in the Council.
There is, however, no doubt that he found the combined work
of President of the Council and member of the Executive Council
very trying and exacting. Apart from the heavy volume of work
that it involved, he had to perform also a difficult psychological
feat of trying to be impartial even when his own departments were
subjected to severe criticism by the members of the Council; and
it must be admitted that he rose to the occasion and, on the whole,
gave a good account of himself.
Ultimately, on the retirement of his senior colleague, Sir Havilland
LeMesuner, the work of the three members of the Executive
Council had to be divided between two members only. Sinha was
then relieved of his duties as President on November 20, 1922,
after having won universal appreciation for his work and worth.
Thus, it can well be said that Sinha’s contribution to the growth
of parliamentary conventions and practices in India, as President
of the Bihar and Orissa Legislative Council, were of no mean
order. His work as Deputy President of the Indian Legislative
Assembly was also highly spoken of by all. Sir Frederick Whyte,
the first President of the Indian Legislative Assembly, paying
tributes to him said. “Few figures in the contemporary constitu¬
tional and political movement in India were better known than Mr.
Sinha”. When faced with constitutional intricacy or difficulty,
Speakers, legislators, and even administrators used to consult Sinha
confidentially, and the latter always came to their help quietly
without making any fuss over it.
A question was referred to him by the Speaker of the Bihar
Assembly in 1939. The Speaker wanted to be sure whether he
had the right to call a meeting of the Legislative Council when the
62 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

Constitution had been suspended. The reply given by Sinha was

as follows :
“It is only after the commencement of a session that the
hon’ble Speaker may direct the Assembly to sit when business
may require a sitting, but the session can commence only on the
Assembly being first summoned by His Excellency the Governor
in his discretion, in exercise of the power vested in him under
Section 62(2) (a) of the Government of India Act, 1935. It follows
then, as a corollary, that in view of the operation of this provision
being at present suspended by virtue of the proclamation issued
by His Excellency the Government [under section 93(2) of the said
Act] and the fact that His Excellency the Governor exercising all
the powers vested by or under the Act in the Provincial Legislature
and in either Chamber thereof, though the hon’ble Speaker may
continue in office until the next general election, he is, in fact
function officio insofar as his work of convening a session of the
Assembly is concerned”.
There was, however, the stubborn fact, which, in his opinion,
could not be brushed aside or ignored that “the Legislature does
exist, it having been only prorogued, but not dissolved, and that as
such it has a constitutional right to claim to meet to represent its
constituents and express public opinion. In these circumstances,
if the hon’ble Speaker accepts the view I have expressed above,
he should as the custodian of the rights and privileges of the
Assembly, approach His Excellency the Governor to take action
under sub-section (2) of Section 92, and to be pleased to revoke,
or vary his last proclamation, so as to enable the Assembly to meet
and express their opinion as that of the elected representative of
the people”.
 The Administrator

O n being appointed member of the Bihar and Orissa Executive

Council in May 1921, Smha was consulted by the Governor,
Lord S.P. Sinha, as to what portfolios he would like to have. Sinha
mentioned some departments, but did not include Finance among
them. Thereupon, Lord Sinha in a way insisted that he should have
the major portfolio of Finance also. The two considerations that
prompted him to do so were : firstly, that there was no Indian
member of the Executive Council in charge of Finance in any other
province; secondly, that a Finance Member possessed the unique
opportunity of peeping into the affairs of all other departments of
the Government, and of exercising some control, may be indirect,
over them. Another important consideration that perhaps weighed
with Lord Sinha was that, under the new Dyarchical system of
administration, which had just been introduced at the time, the
Finance Department of the province had to be very vigilant in
carefully maintaining a balance between the Reserved and the
Transferred subjects in the matter of allotment of funds. Lord
Sinha was anxious that the demands of the ministers in charge
of the Transferred Departments should be treated in a sympathetic
manner so that the nation-building programme might not suffer
unduly. He, therefore, desired that when a publicman of Sinha’s
reputation and standing was available, the Finance portfolio should
not go to any one else. Thus Smha was given the Finance portfolio
also, along with some other departments. It does to his credit that
he fully lived up to the expectations of Lord Sinha and the people
of the province.
It may be interesting to note here that, as later developments
showed, Lord Sinha had acted with prophetic vision, as it were,
in allotting the Finance Department to Sinha. When the dyarchical
system of administration had worked for three years, a committee
64 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

was appointed by the Government of India, under the chairmanship

of Sir Alexander Muddiman, to examine and report on the working
of the Montford Reforms. The one general complaint of a rather
serious character made before it was that the Finance Member
was in charge of some spending departments as well. It was
argued that there was a natural desire on his part to promote the
interests of the departments under him at the expense of other
departments, particularly the nation-building departments, which
were under the control of Ministers. In many provinces, the
Minister felt that their departments had been starved. But, on an
examination of the figures of allocation of funds between the two
halves of the Government, it was found that the aforesaid charge
of the Ministers, however, true and valid it may have been in
respect of some other provinces, was not so in respect of Bihar.
For instance, while in Madras the figures of expenditure on
the Reserved side, during the years 1921, 1922 and 1923, were
68 per cent, 67 per cent and 66 per cent, respectively, the cor¬
responding figures for the Transferred side were 32 per cent, 33
per cent and 34 per cent, respectively. Likewise, in Bengal, the
figures for expenditure on the Reserved side during the same years
were 70 per cent, 66 per cent and 66 per cent, respectively; the
corresponding figures for the Transferred side were only 30 per
cent, 34 per cent and 34 per cent, respectively. In Assam also,
the Transferred Departments got 22 per cent, 26 per cent and 25
per cent only of the revenue, the major portion having been allotted
to the Reserved Departments. This was the state of affairs in the
provinces in which the Finance Departments were under the
charge of European members of the.I.C.S.
In Bihar and Orissa, where an Indian Member of the Execu¬
tive Council (Sinha) presided over the Finance Department, the
case was entirely different. Here, during the three years 1921,
1922 and 1923—the Transferred Department were not only not
starved, but, on the contrary, were extremely well-fed, with the
allotments of 70 to 74 per cent for them. The figures for 1924-
25, 1925-26 and 1926-27 were still more telling. During 1924-25,
the Reserved Departments got 10 per cent recurring and 35 per
cent non-recurring, the Transferred Departments got 90 per cent
THE ADMINISTRATOR 65

recurring and 65 per cent non-recurring. Similarly, the figures of

1925-26 and 1926-27 were : Reserved—7 (recurring) and 10 (non¬
recurring) and 5 (recurring) and 25 (non-recurring) respectively.
The Transferred Departments’ figures were 93 (recurring) and 81
(non-recurring) and 95 (recurring) and 75 (non-recurring), respec¬
tively. On an average, the expenditure of the Transferred Depart¬
ments worked out to 78 per cent as against only 22 per cent of
the Reserved Departments.
Bihar and Orissa was the one province where the Ministers
had the least complaint to make against the Finance Department.
In fact, the late Sir Ganesh Dutt Singh, who was one of the
Minister when Sinha was the Finance Member, acknowledged in
the most unequivocal terms the generous support he had received
from the Finance Member. Speaking at a party given to Sinha by
the citizens of Patna after his retirement from office, he said :
“I know what an important part an Executive Councillor
plays in the financial administration of Dyarchy. I may tell
you that whatever complaint you may have against Dyarchy,
half of them will disappear if you have a sympathetic and
cooperative Finance Minister like Mr. Sinha. We know the
value of the help and sympathy we received form Mr.
Sinha in the discharge of our duties. Whenever there arose
any difficult question from the financial standpoint, we
always looked up to him for help and we did always
receive from him his generous support. I do not know, how
we shall fare in his absence.”
The other minister, Sir Mohammad Fakhruddin also spoke in
glowing terms about him for having “creditably discharged the
onerous duties entrusted to him as the Finance Member of the
Governor’s Executive Council.” It was during Sinha’s term of
office that education and health programmes received consider¬
able encouragement and support. At the time of laying down the
reins of his office, he could justly claim that the financial condition
of the province stood on a better and stronger footing than at the
time he had taken charge of that department. No wonder that the
Indian members of the Muddiman Committee on Indians Reform
(Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Sir Sivaswamy Iyer, M.A. Jinnah and Sir
66 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

R.P.Paranjpye) were able to strongly refute in their minority report

the theory propounded by their European colleagues that only
trained I.C.S. officers could successfully manage the work of the
Finance Department and no non-official Member or Minister should,
therefore, be placed in charge of that department. They said : “The
Indian Member of the Executive Council of Bihar and Orissa who
holds the Finance portfolio has not proved to be less competent
than the Service members in other provinces. But had he been
an elected member of the legislature, responsible to it, he would
have been ineligible for that position. We think that this bar should
be removed even under the present system”.

Jail Administration

Perhaps, the most difficult problem that Sinha had to deal with
as a Member of the Government in charge of jails was the
treatment of political prisoners, that is, those prisoners who were
convicted of taking part in the Non-cooperation Movement of
Mahatma Gandhi. As the Member-in-charge, it was his respon¬
sibility to exercise proper control over prisoners, consistent with
their humane treatment, more so in respect of political prisoners.
When Sinha took over charge in May 1921, the Inspector
General of Prison happened to be a British Officer of the Indian
Medical Service. But he went on leave in 1922. In his place came
Sir Hormusji Banatwala, a retired member of the I.M.S., who was
known to be very zabardast or stem officer, and positively hostile
to political prisoners. In fact, it appeared that the very idea of a
political prisoner deserving of any treatment different from the one
meted out to ordinary criminals did not enter his brain. Among the
Non-cooperation political prisoners, there were all sorts of persons,
including those who were not willing to accept the inevitable
limitations ofjail life, or were not easily amenable to jail rules and
discipline, Naturally, there used to be frequent clashes between
these prisoners and the jail officials. Headed by Sir Hormusji, the
jail officials were ever ready to impose the harshest punishment
for violation of jail rules or discipline.
Sinha, of course, held views entirely opposed to those of Sir
THE ADMINISTRATOR 67

Hormusji and other officers, mostly Europeans, with regard to the

treatment of these prisoners. He had thus a difficult task in
enforcing his will against, the most vehement opposition of these
officers. To his credit, however, he managed the situation very well
and was able to have his way in most matters, particularly in the
matter of imposing the punishment of whipping on political pris¬
oners.
In one of the jails, the Inspected-General had directed that
some youngmen, who were said to have persistently defied the
authority of the jail officers, should be put to grinding com and such
other work involving hard labour. In the case of one of them, the
punishment of whipping was also ordered. Both the public and the
press felt greatly agitated over it. These actions also led to a heated
and acrimonious debate in the Bihar and Orissa Legislative Coun¬
cil. Sinha tried to deal with the situation as tactfully as he could.
He was misunderstood for some time, so much so that even a man
like Dr. Rajendra Prasad wrote articles in the press strongly
criticising him. Unmindful of the harsh criticism and undaunted by
the stiff opposition and even threats given by the officers, Sinha
persisted in his endeavour in his own way. At last, he succeeded
in asserting his view that political prisoners, on no account, should
be subjected to whipping.
In the note prepared by him for the discussion of the subject
with the Governor, the position taken by him was that in case of
a prisoner who was contumacious and recalcitrant, he would not
shrink from sanctioning the order of whipping, provided—and it
was a very important proviso—there was no alternative to such
a course, and it was found absolutely essential in the interest of
maintaining discipline in jails. He, however, expressed himself
strongly that he should be able to carry on the jail administration
without whipping any prisoner. He was always conscious of the
strong feeling in the country, which he himself fully shared, that
such punishment was not only inhuman and brutal to the delinquent
but it also dehumanished the directing authority. He was, therefore,
averse to any prisoner being flogged and suggested that, if nec¬
essary, he might be prosecuted under the Prison’s Act for any
specific offence or offences.
68 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

Against this method of dealing with the prisoners, it was

pointed out to him by the officers concerned, no prosecution for
jail offences could lie unless the superintendent had exhausted all
the penalties he could inflict, including, of course, that of whipping.
This view of the law was, however, not acceptable to Sinha. On
the contrary, he held that the section, dealing with prosecution for
prison offences, nowhere laid down that the superintendent must
have first resorted to whipping or exhausted his right of imposing
other punishments by actually exercising it before he could place
a prisoner on trial for jail offences. All that the section laid down,
he pointed out, was that before placing the prisoner on trial, the
superintendent should give his opinion that no punishment which
he had the power to award could be adequate to meet the situation.
In the circumstances, he held that there was and could be no bar
to any prisoner’s prosecution under the Prison’s Act.
There was a long discussion on this subject between him and
the governor, Sir Henry Wheeler. Ultimately, the latter felt con¬
vinced of the correctness of Sinha’s interpretation of the law. As
a result, no prisoner during Sinha’s term of office of more than
five years was subjected to the punishment of flogging.
Sinha was also instrumental in introducing some other reforms
in the jail administration of Bihar. He tried to so modify the
conditions as to strengthen the ‘human element’ in it, as opposed
to the purely ‘criminal element’, consistent with the conditions in
the jails.
In this connection, it may be recalled that Sinha had fought
valiantly before the Lothian Committee for the transfer of jails to
popular control, mainly on the ground of ill-treatment of political
prisoners. It was, indeed an extremely trying job for Sinha to
introduce improvements in jail administration, in the face of the
strong opposition and obstacles placed by hostile officials. This, he
had to do while, at the same time, assuring the maintenance of
order and discipline in the jails where there were a large number
of new class of prisoners who were ever ready to defy jail rules
and authority on the slightest pretext. But, say what the critics may,
there is no denying the fact that Sinha did succeed in an appreciable
measure in introducing improvements in the jail administration.
 Return to Public Life

S inha relinquished charge of his office as Executive Councillor

some time in June 1926. He made over charge to his successor,
Maharaja Keshav Prasad Singh of Dumraon, a few days earlier
than the due date of retirement. It may be interesting to note that
the earlier date was considered the most auspicious according to
the Maharaja’s astrologers. The Chief Secretary first took the
view that the Maharaja’s request should not be accepted as it
would mean a loss of so many rupees and annas and pies to Sinha.
Agreeing with the Chief Secretary, the Governor observed that,
quite apart from the financial loss it would involve to Sinha, it would
not be right to sanction a course which might be regarded as a
precedent for some Indian members of Government thereafter to
fix the date of assumption of their office on astrological grounds.
When Sinha came to know of it, he readily expressed his willing¬
ness to comply with his successor’s request.
Some days later, the European Manager of the Maharaja came
to Sinha to convey the thanks of the Maharaja for his having
acceded to his wishes. While doing so, the Manager suggested that
his master would be glad if Sinha could accept from him the
amount that he would lose by retiring a couple of days earlier. Sinha
laughed at it, told him that, apart from the fact that it was not open
to him to do so as a Member of the Government, he would not
like to convert an act of courtesy into one of profit.
So, the Maharaja took over charge as Member of the Execu¬
tive Council a few days earlier on the auspicious date fixed by
his astrologers. Sinha returned to public life and resumed practice
at the Bar on June 18, 1926.
Before his departure from Ranchi (the summer headquarters
of the Government), where he was staying at the time, Sinha was
entertained to a dinner by the Secretaries to the Government,
70 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

which testified to the happy and cordial relations that had subsisted
between him and many British and Indian members of the Indian
Civil Service. A formal and conventional dinner was given in his
honour by the Governor who, while proposing his toast, spoke in
eulogistic terms about his services as a Member of the Govern¬
ment.
At Patna, some leading men of the province had organised a
public demonstration to mark his return to public life. The party,
held on that occasion, was one of the biggest public functions ever
held in Patna. A dinner, in which covers were laid for over 100
persons, was also held in his honour. The Acting Chief Justice,
Sir Jwala Prasad, presided over this dinner gathering.
Next year, in May 1927, Sinha visited England to recuperate
his health. He returned to India towards the end of the year, after
having spent six months in various parts of Britain and the Con¬
tinent.

Leader of the Opposition

In deference to the wishes of his friends, Sinha agreed to enter

the Bihar and Orissa Legislative Council. He was elected unop¬
posed from his home district of Shahabad in 1930. Later, he was
elected twice to represent the Patna University in the Bihar
Assembly in 1937 and 1946.
Except for the period when the Swarajists were there in the
Legislative Council, the Government had no organised opposition
to face. As a confirmed constitutionalist, Sinha was a firm believer
in the value of an effective opposition in a parliamentary form of
government. The system of nomination of a block of officials and
non-officials by the Governor as members was wholly inconsistent
with parliamentary government. It reduced democracy to a farce,
since the official members of the nominated block were bound to
vote with the Government, while the nominated non-official mem¬
bers also invariably did the same. That was an unfair handicap
to the working of any parliamentary opposition in the legislatures
of those days.
In the prevailing circumstances, Sinha regarded the existence
RETURN TO PUBLIC LIFE 71

of an opposition, for whatever it might be worth, as a vital feature

of parliamentary government. On his initiative, an opposition group
was organised and he himself was elected its leader. He occupied
this position till the introduction of the new reforms and the dis¬
appearance of the nominated block in 1936. This opposition party
was known as the Constitutional Nationalist party.
For about six years, he worked as leader of the opposition,
but he found the work as he often used to say, by no means
congenial. In a truly parliamentary system of government, the
leader of the opposition is often consulted privately by the head
of the administration on important matters, even though his wishes
and suggestions are not binding in any way. Such, however, was
not the case at the time either in the Central or Provincial leg¬
islatures in India.
This was so because the majority of British members of the
Indian Civil Service, as Sinha says in his autobiography*, “In spite
of their high standard of ability, intelligence, and strong sense of
public duty, and a desire to advance the welfare of the people
committed to their charge, were wholly unimaginative and not able
to see beyond the tips of their noses. Hence, their lack of sympathy
with even the reasonable and legitimate aspirations of the cultured
and enlightened sections of the politically-minded Indians, their
disregard for the opinion of the educated classes and, in the result,
the many serious errors that they were consistently falling into,
with dire consequences to the smooth and successful working of
the administration. In the circumstances, it would have been a
wonder if I could have been able to get on with the executive in
the legislature in matters of policy or on measures on which they
and I naturally looked from different angles”.
Much of the routine work with which Sinha had to deal with
in the legislature was of such limited importance, as not to attract
attention outside the province. Yet, a reference may be made here
to some of the important subjects in the discussions on which he
had taken a prominent part as leader of the opposition.
One of them, to which he drew attention from year to year
* Reminiscences of Long Life, which Dr. Sinha could not complete, but a few
chapters of which were published in the Hindustan Review
72 SACHCH1DANANDA SINHA

through cut motions, related to the administration of the Bettiah

estate which had remained, for about 40 years or so, in the hands
of the British members of the I.C.S. owing to the alleged unsound
mental condition of the Maharam. All his efforts were, however,
practically wasted, though his motions were carried year after year
in spite of strong Government opposition.
Another important matter of a highly contentious nature that
came up for discussion during this period was the Public Safety
Bill which was naturally opposed by Sinha. Although the Govern¬
ment were able to get the Bill passed, Sinha’s brilliant speech
against it attracted considerable attention and made a deep impres¬
sion upon the non-officials. He ended his speech with the following
stirring peroration :
“Say what you will; do what you can; thwart it as you may;
safeguard your powers, privileges and pelf as you may
desire; throw what difficulties you can in the way of our
constitutional progress; take what advantage you can of
the yet unfortunate divisions in our ranks by playing one
against the other; but remember the day of reckoning,
foreshadowed in the never-to-be-forgotten lines of your
own great poet :
‘ Yet Freedom! yet thy banner tom but flying, Streams like
the thunderstorms against the wind!’
But, perhaps the most important debate, in which Sinha took
a leading part, was in March 1933, on the proposals outlined by
Sir Samuel Hoare in what is known as the “White Paper on Indian
Reforms.” It may be relevant here to narrate, in brief, the history
of the “White Paper”.
Constitutional Reforms under the Government of India Act of
1919, popularly known as the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, were
introduced in 1921 under very inauspicious circumstances, when
the whole country was in a state of ferment as a result of the
passing of the Rowlatt Act, which provided the executive with
very wide and sweeping powers to deal with political agitation. It
had roused widespread resentment throughout the country, and the
strong agitation set up against it had led to the Jallianwala Bagh
tragedy on April 13, 1919, in which hundreds of innocent persons
RETURN TO PUBLIC LIFE 73

were killed and thousands wounded. This and the subsequent

atrocities perpetrated, during the martial law regime in the Punjab,
had engendered intense anti-British feeling. Together with other
concomitant factors, this resulted in the launching of the Civil
Disobedience and Non-cooperation movement under the leader¬
ship of Mahatma Gandhi.
The inherent defects in the Government of India Act, 1919,
and the cruel repression of popular movements had caused ex¬
treme dissatisfaction ever since the introduction of the Montagu-
Chelmsford Reforms. There was a resolution to that effect in the
Central Legislative Assembly in the very first year of its existence,
Though there was a provision in the government of India Act of
1919 for an enquiry into the working of the Reforms after the
expiry of ten years from the passing of the Act, the three years
of agitation for a substantial advance resulted in the appointment
in 1924 of the Reforms Enquiry Committee, better known as the
Muddiman Committee. Its Chairman, Sir Alexander Mudiman,
was then the Home Member of the Government of India. The
other members of the Committee were Sir Mohammad Shafi,
Maharaja Sir Bijaychand Mahatab Bahadur Burdwan, Sir Tej
Bahadur Sapru, Sir Arthur Froom, Sir P. S. Sivaswamy Iyer, Sir
Henry Moncrieff Smith, Dr. R.P. Paranjpye and M.A. Jmnah.
Pandit Motilal Nehru had refused the invitation to serve on this
Committee on the ground that no enquiry within the limited terms
of reference laid down for it could yield any satisfactory result.
The report of this Committee, which was not unanimous, was
signed on December 3, 1924. The minority report was signed by
Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, M.A. Jmnah, Sir Sivaswamy Iyer and Dr.
R. P. Paranjpye. The majority report was signed by the rest of
the members, who had recommended only some minor changes
in the Act of 1919 which, they thought, would serve the needs of
the time. The members signing the minority report, however, were
of the view that no changes within the framework of the Act would
be adequate to satisfy public opinion. They, therefore, recom¬
mended that a Royal Commission, or any other authoritative body,
with wider terms of reference and a larger scope of enquiry, should
be appointed to consider and suggest wholesale revision of the Act,
74 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA "

in order to replace it by a constitution with provision for its

automatic revision. The two reports were published in March 1925,
after which a resolution was moved in the Imperial Legislative
Assembly, on behalf of the Government of India, in September
1925, for the acceptance of the recommendations of the majority
report. Pandit Motilal Nehru thereupon moved an amendment,
which came to be known as the “National Demand”. It was
carried by an overwhelming majority, having received the support
of almost all the political parties. Panditji had subjected the system
of Dyarchy to a scathing criticism and condemned it as wholly
unworkable.
Lord Reading, the Viceroy and Governor-General, was op¬
posed to the appointment of a Royal Commission, mainly on the
ground that the time was not ripe for the appointment of such a
commission. At the same time, it was said that he was not averse
to summoning a Round Table Conference, if the situation so
demanded.
Lord Reading was succeeded by Lord Irwin in 1926. Surpris¬
ingly enough, about a year later (March 1927), Lord Birkenhead,
the Secretary of State for India, announced the decision of His
majesty’s Government to appoint a Statutory Commission in ad¬
vance of the due date. According to Section 84 of the Government
of India Act, 1919 a Statutory Commission was to be appointed on
the expiration of 10 years of the passing of the Act, i.e., in 1929.
But it was actually appointed two years before that date.

Simon Commission

By a special Act of Parliament, a Statutory Commission,

popularly known as the Simon Commission, was appointed. Special
care was taken to exclude Indians altogether from this Commis¬
sion. This was, in the words of Sinha, “not only highly arbitrary
and grossly unfair to the inherent rights of the people, but it was
also an arrogant assertion of British imperialism, and an absolute
negation of India’s right to take a prominent part and assist materially
in the framing of her own constitution”.
The deliberate exclusion of Indians from the Commission,
RETURN TO PUBLIC LIFE 75

Smha hoped, might prove to be the soul of goodness in things evil

and restore the lost political unity by coalescene into one compact
body, one solid phalanx, of the various political parties and com¬
munal factions.
As events later showed, Smha was not far wrong in this
observation and his hope had largely been realised. India’s answer
to this affront was a well-organised, wholesale boycott of the
Commission and hostile demonstrations at every place visited by
them.
The report of the Commission was published in May 1930. We
need not go into the details of the recommendations. Suffice it to
say that, as was expected, it proved to be a singularly disappointing
document which, in the words of that moderate of moderates, Sir
Sivaswamy Iyer, was “fit to be thrown on the scrap heap”. On
October 16,1929, Sir John Simon had written to the Prime Minister,
Ramsay MacDonald, suggesting that, after the publication of the
report of the Commission, a conference should be held between
the representatives of His Majesty’s Government and the repre¬
sentatives of British India and the Indian States “for the purpose
of seeking the greatest possible measure of agreement for the final
proposals which it would be the duty of His Majesty’s Government
to submit to Parliament”*. Accepting this suggestion, Ramsay
MacDonald announced on October 31, 1929, through the Viceroy,
Lord Irwin, that after the submission of reports by the Simon
Commission and the Indian Central Committee (appointed by the
government of India to work with the Commission), and consider¬
ation by His majesty’s Government, in consultation with the Gov¬
ernment of India, they would invite representatives of British India
and the Indian States to meet them separately or together at a
conference to discuss the India constitutional problems. Three
such conferences were held between 1930 and 1932. The first
conference was held in 1930, at which various shades of opinions
and diverse interests in British India and the Indian States were
represented. The Congress had boycotted the conference. The
second conference was held in 1931. This time, the Congress was
represented by its supreme leader Mahatma Gandhi.
* The Transfer of Power in India by V.P. Menon, Page 38.
76 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

The Labour Government had, by this time, been replaced by

a national coalition government. Ramsay MacDonald had contin¬
ued to be its nominal head, but the dominant factor in it was the
Conservative party. The Secretary of State for India, Wedgwood
Benn, had been replaced by Sir Samuel Hoare (later Viscount
Templewood). In India, Lord Irwin had been replaced as Viceroy
by Lord Willingdon, who never failed to display his antipathy
towards the Congress in general and Gandhiji in particular. No
wonder, in such an atmosphere, the Second Round Table Confer¬
ence proved to be more disappointing than the first, and eventually
broke down on the communal representation issue.
Gandhiji tried his best to find a suitable solution of the problem,
but after protracted negotiations, he had to admit with “deep
sorrow and deeper humiliation” his utter failure to secure an
agreed solution.

Communal Award

Thus, the initiative of finding a solution to the problem had

passed from the hands of the Conference to His Majesty’s Gov¬
ernment, on whose behalf the British Prime Minister published his
“Communal Award”. “It was a misnomer to call it so, for an award
presupposes arbitration, and arbitration is a process voluntarily
resorted to by free and equal parties. In this case, it may be claimed
that the contending parties were the Hindus, the Muslims, the Sikhs
and other communities, and that since at the Round Table Con¬
ference they could not arrive at an agreement, it became neces¬
sary for the British Government to give a decision. But that is a
very different thing from an award, for there was no voluntary
submission of the dispute to the Prime Minister”.*
The Prime Minister, however, announced his so-called “Award”
on April 16, 1932. The “Award” related to the provincial legisla¬
tures. “It accorded separate electorates for Muslims, Europeans,
sikhs, Indian Christians and Anglo-Indians. Seats were reserved
for Marathas in certain selected constituencies in Bombay. The
Depressed Classes were given seats which were to the filled by
election from special constituencies in which they alone could vote,
RETURN TO PUBLIC LIFE 77

though they were entitled to vote also in general constituencies. A

number of seats, also communally divided, were allotted to women.
Special seats were allotted to labour, commerce, industry, mining
and planting and land-holders”. Commenting on this “Award”,
Sinha, in a press statement, said that it was meant to give “a death
blow to the smooth working of responsible and democratic govern¬
ment in the country; and is likely to install in its place either
communal or combined groups’ government, the result of which, in
the long run, is bound to be disastrous and to accentuate the already
disruptive factors in the country, to intensify the working of the
centrifugal elements in our public life, to thwart and ultimately
suppress the present, rather weak, centripetal forces, and to divert
the proposed constitution from that of the responsible type to one
which will be just the reverse of it by reason of its evoking an anti-
national spirit in the administration”.
This dismemberment of the body-politic into so many religious,
racial and economic factors, was, in the opinion of Sinha, “obvi¬
ously a system which was not only anti-national but anti-rational
as well”. It did not rest on any sound principle and, from the
nationalist point of view, was as bad as it could be. As such, he
felt that no political reform could be of any value which sought
to emphasise and prepetuate the religious, social and economic
divisions, since “the one inevitable result of it is bound to be
bitterness, acerbity and strife amongst various groups and sections,
a state of affairs which must render the work of administration
extremely difficult, if not impossible”.
It may be pertinent here to recall that the attempt in the Award
to cut off the depressed classes from the mam body of the Hindus
by means of separate electorates led Mahatma Gandhi to under¬
take ‘the epic fast’ on September 20, 1932. He was in jail at that
time. As a result of his fast, an agreement was reached on
September 24, 1932, between Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, C.
Rajagopalachari, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Sardar Patel, Mrs. Naidu
and others on one side and Dr. Ambedkar and Mr. M.C. Rajah
on the other. It was later accepted by the British Government also.
Known as the Poona Pact, this agreement recommended a joint
* India’s Constitution at Work by C.Y. Chintamani and M. R. Masani, Pages 70-71.
78 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

electorate for the Scheduled Castes and the Hindus, but seats were
to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes people out of the general
Hindu (or non-Mohammedan) seats in the provincial legislatures.
Gandhiji broke his fast on September 26, 1932.
The third and last session of the Round Table Conference was
held in November 1932. It was attended by only 46 delegates.
None of the important Princes was present, nor was the Congress
represented.
As a result of the decisions taken by the Government in the
light of the discussions at the three Round Table Conferences, a
White Paper, setting forth the proposals of His Majesty’s Govern¬
ment for Indian constitutional reform to replace the Montagu-
Chelmsford constitution, then in operation, was published in March
1933.

White Paper

This White Paper was so reactionary a document and found

so little acceptance with the politically-minded Indians that its
publication created a great sensation throughout the country. The
government of Bihar and Orissa was the first provincial Govern¬
ment to allot a day for the discussion of the scheme set forth in
the White Paper in the Legislative Council. The debate took place
on March 22, 1933, only two days after the publication of the
document.
Sinha moved the following amendment to the official resolu¬
tion:
“The Scheme propounded by His Majesty’s Government
is, on the whole, unsatisfactory, confers but little power
on the people of the province, is hedged in by numerous
limitations, is opposed to the interest of India, indicates
sweeping changes in the present and prospective system
of administration in India, and the scheme needs substan¬
tial modifications.”
In a long speech on the subject, Sinha, strongly criticised the
White Paper proposals in detail and observed that the system
proposed to be introduced would “perpetuate British domination
RETURN TO PUBLIC LIFE 79

in the country, enthrone pure and unadulterated autocracy, and

render the people far more helpless to resist the despotism of the
new Government than they are even at present.... It is a scheme
which betrayed lamentable distrust of Indian capacity and char¬
acter in relation to political freedom”. Quoting from Macaulay*,
Sinha reiterated the truism that there was “one cure for the evils
which freedom produces and that cure is freedom”, and recalled
the memorable words of Mr. Gladstone: “It is liberty alone which
fits men for liberty.” Concluding his speech, Sinha emphatically
declared that the White Paper Scheme “far from bringing in its
train any political appeasement or any general satisfaction and
contentment, will aggravate the already difficult situation in the
country, intensify discontent and widespread struggle for freedom,
deepen serious unrest, beget bitterness for strife and generate
acerbity and illwill even where they do not exist at present”. He
warned the British Government that while they were still “cogi¬
tating, pausing, hesitating, concocting and soliloquosing to give or
not to give :
“The Moving Finger writes; and having writ,
Moves On : nor will all thy piety nor wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,
Nor all thy tears wash out a word of it”.
Sinha never minced matters and always spoke out unequivo¬
cally in clear and eloquent words what he felt to be just and right
in the discharge of his public duties. Ultimately, the amendment
moved by him was carried in the Council, the officials refraining
from voting.
Earlier, in October, 1932, Sinha was invited by the Viceroy to
attend the Third Round Table Conference, which met in London
in November of the year. But he could not accept the invitation,
firstly, because of ill-health and, secondly, he felt, after reading the
reports of the first and the second Round Table Conferences, that
he would not be able to do any good to the country by attending
the third conference. A perusal of the scheme of reforms, as
* No people are to be free till they are fit to use their freedom is a maxim worthy
of the fool who resolved not to go into water till he has learnt to swim, for if
men are to wait for liberty till they become wise and good in slavery, they may
indeed wait for ever.”

I
80 S AC HC H l DAN AN DA SINHA

elaborated at the three Round Table Conferences and outlined

subsequently in the White Paper, left no doubt in his mind that he
had acted wisely in not associating himself with it.

Dyarchy

We may here leave the story of the White Paper for a while
to say something about the system of Dyarchy which was in
operation at the time the White Paper proposals were formulated.
Ever since the introduction of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms,
which brought Dyarchy into existence, Sinha had strongly held the
view that the new system would not only be unworkable in prac¬
tice, but would also fail to achieve its objective either from the
administrative or political angle. He had expressly told Curtis, the
author of the new system, about his view when the latter was going
around the country, explaining and trying to win support for it.
Under this new system, the provincial administration was
divided into two halves, called the ‘Reserved’ and the ‘Trans¬
ferred’. The former was administered by the Governor and the
members of his Executive Council, who like the Governor himself,
were appointed by the King and who, as such, were responsible to
the King-in-Parliament. The latter was administered by the Gov¬
ernor with his Ministry, the members of which were chosen by the
Governor from among the elected members of the provincial
legislature. In theory, they were responsible to that body. The
Reserved half, generally speaking, was in charge of law and order,
finance, land revenue, justice, irrigation, jail, recruitment and con¬
duct of the executive and judicial services, etc. The Transferred
half, broadly speaking, administered what were generally called the
nation-building departments—education, agriculture, local self-gov¬
ernment, industries and excise departments, etc.
Sinha had the opportunity of seeing from within the working
of Dyarchy in a major province like Bihar and Orissa for a period
of more than five years. He had worked as President of the
Legislative Council, as well as Finance Member during the term
of office of four Governors. His earlier views on the system were
fully confirmed by actual experience that he had gathered at its
RETURN TO PUBLIC LIFE 81

working. He never missed any opportunity of exposing the inherent

defects of the system. Such an opportunity first came to him in
July 1924, when the Provincial Governments were asked by the
Government of India to give their opinion on the working of the
Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms during the first three years (1921-
23) of their operation. Smha wrote a separate note on the subject,
which was appended to the despatch of Bihar’s Govemor-in-
Council. It was not one of dissent, but was meant to supplement,
from the Indian point of view, the observations of his other col¬
leagues on the Reserved side.
In 1926, the Govemor-in-Council submitted another report on
the working of Dyarchy in Bihar and Orissa during the years 1923
to 1926. By that time, Sinha’s term as Member of the Executive
Council had expired and so he could not append any dissenting
or supplementary note to that report. But at the request of K.C.
Roy of the Associated Press of India (now merged in the Press
Trust of India), he issued a fairly long and critical statement which
received wide publicity in the press and attracted considerable
attention throughout the country. He had dealt with the subject in
a broad way and his observations, therefore, applied as much to
other provinces.
The first report of the Government of Bihar and Orissa, to
which he himself had contributed, was an almost impartial survey
of the working of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms during the
first three years of its operation. The second report, as Smha
conclusively showed in his press statement, was vitiated not only
by wrong conclusions but also by presentation of incorrect data
which was obviously reprehensible. On a careful consideration of
that report, he had come to the conclusion that the State
Government’s document had been prepared, evidently, with the
ulterior motive of prejudicing the case for further reform which
was then under consideration.
Smha had prepared a fairly long paper on “Dyarchy in Theory
and Practice”. He read it at the East India Association London,
on October 3, 1927. In this paper, he had conclusively shown that
Dyarchy had few merits, if any, while its demerits were unfor¬
tunately so numerous as to render it unworkable and practically
82 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

useless as a means of qualifying Indians to fit them “for gradual

development of self-governing institutions with a view to the pro¬
gressive realisation of responsible government in British India as
an integral part of the Empire”, which was the raisond’etre of
the Reform Act of 1919.
In this paper, as also in his earlier notes and statements, Sinha
had discussed at length the actual working of this novel type of
“Hybrid system”. Quoting some authontative opinions on the sub¬
ject, he sought to prove that it was not only “too complex and
complicated, but one which was unknown to constitutional history
and was naturally unwarranted by political experience as a sat¬
isfactory solution of the problem of an efficient executive, suffi¬
ciently amenable to control of popular representatives.” He had
strongly advocated that the Act of 1919 should be completely
scrapped and all departments transferred to popular ministers and
full provincial autonomy introduced. He had maintained, consis¬
tently and persistently in all his speeches and writings on the
subject, that Dyarchy was “a shadow without substance and unless
something was done very soon to re-place it by a constitution
granting immediate autonomy to the provinces and providing for
automatic growth and consequent expansion leading to India’s
status as a Dominion in British Commonwealth of Nations, India
would gain her freedom as ireland had done, and, in spite of her
wish to remain within the Empire, might choose to go out of it”.
To utter such ideas of revolutionary character in those days re¬
quired unusual courage: Sinha had enough courage of conviction
to speak out without mincing words what he felt so strongly about.
Sinha’s paper read before the East India Association, London,
was listened to with great attention and it appeared to have made
an impression even on those unsympathetic European officials who
had either retired after serving in India or who were on leave from
their posts in India. The discussion on Sinha’s paper was opened
by Maharajadhiraj Sir Bijoy Chand Mahatab Bahadur of Burdwan,
who himself had served as a member of the Bengal Government,
both before and after the introduction of Dyarchy. Although he
did not agree with Sinha on some minor points, he gave support
to his main contention that Dyarchy was wholly an unsound and
RETURN TO PUBLIC LIFE 83

unscientific system of administration. He too felt that it deserved

to be immediately replaced by complete provincial autonomy with
a strong constitutional Governor, guided by a ministry wholly
responsible to the provincial legislature. Perhaps, the audience was
not prepared for this kind of support from the Maharajadhiraj. The
meeting was then forthwith adjourned to another day for further
discussion on the paper.
This adjourned meeting was held only after Sinha had left
London for India and thus the field was made clear for the
supporters of Dyarchy to freely criticise and denounce the paper.
After the receipt of report of the discussions held in his absence,
Sinha prepared a crushing reply, the full text of which was cir¬
culated by him among the press and the public. It was also
published in the journal of the East India Association, but in a
truncated form, because, it was said, it had exceeded the pre¬
scribed limit of one thousand words. The reply, however, had
aroused considerable interest throughout the country. Even Gandhiji,
in a letter to Sinha, had said that he had “read the address and
found it both instructive and interesting” and that there were
“things in it which are quite new to me”. Other comments and
observations, made by persons competent to judge its worth, had
unanimously acclaimed the paper* as one in which arguments had
been marshalled with great force and clarity.

Joint Parliamentary Committee

Now, to resume the story of the White Paper, it was made

clear at the time of its publication that the proposals contained
therein would be referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee; and
after they had been considered and reported upon, a Bill embody¬
ing the final plan would be introduced in Parliament.
Accordingly, in April 1933, the White Paper proposals in
particular, and the question of Indian constitutional reforms in
general, were submitted to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for
consideration, examination and report. This Committee was com-
* The full text of the paper is printed int he collection of Sinha’s Speeches and
Writing published by Messrs Ram Narain Lai & Sons, Allahabad.
84 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

posed of 32 members-sixteen from the House ot Commons and

an equal number from the House of Lords. Of these, twenty-five
belonged to the Conservative Party, four to the Labour Party and
three to the Liberal Party.
Some prominent Indians were also associated with the Com¬
mittee during the examination of witness, but they were not entitled
to take any part in its deliberations. Two of them—Sir Tej Bahadur
Sapru and His Royal Highness the Aga Khan—had, however,
submitted two separate memoranda for the consideration of the
Committee.
The Committee held as many as 159 meetings at which they
examined a large number of witnesses, both from Britain and India.
Sinha happened to be in England during the summer of 1933 when
the Committee was holding its enquires. On receiving an invitation
from it, he appeared as a witness, and was cross-examined at, length
on the memorandum he had submitted earlier, setting forth his views
on the scheme, as also the essential demands of nationalist India.
The decisions of the British Government, as embodied in the
White Paper, or the report of the proceedings of the Joint Par¬
liamentary Committee or the provisions of the Bill introduced by
Sir Samuel Hoare in Parliament, are at present of no more than
mere historical or academic importance. However, the reader will
find a good deal of interest in them, for they give one an idea of
how our leaders of those days, with their faith in constitutional
agitation, had fought every inch of the ground in the face of
tremendous odds and disappointment to wrest as much power from
the unwilling hands of British imperialists as was possible in the
given circumstances. Sinha too belonged to that band of Indian
nationalists. By his writings and speeches, he did a lot to help the
advancement of Indian constitutional reforms.

Sinha’s Memorandum

The memorandum submitted by him to the Joint Parliamentary

Committee, or the speeches made by him in the Bihar Legislative
Council on the subject, contain not only a masterly critical estimate
of the White Paper proposals, but some very sound suggestions
RETURN TO PUBLIC LIFE 85

also, based on the minimum demand of nationalist India, for the

amendment of those proposals.
Both in his speeches and in his evidence before the Joint
Parliamentary Committee, Sinha had pointed out that, significantly
enough, there was absolutely no reference in the proposals to
Dominion Status for India even as a remote ideal. It appeared to
him that this omission was deliberate and was but one more
example of Lord Lytton’s famous description of the British
Government's settled policy towards India—namely “of breaking
to the heart the words of promise they uttered to the ear”.
Sir Samuel’s Bill had contemplated a Federation of Indian
States. Sinha’s suggestion in this connection was to remove the
indefinite nature and uncertainty about its inauguration by fixing
a period of one year for the Indian States to come into it. Power,
however, could be reserved to the Crown to extend the date by
one more year, if the requisite conditions were not fulfilled. Further,
in his view, the establishment of the Federation was not to be made
dependent upon the presentation of an address by the two Flouses
of Parliament praying for the issue of a proclamation to that effect.
He also wanted provision to be made for automatic growth,
that is, a special machinery for the removal of safeguards and
reservations within a definite period of time, leading to Dominion
Status for India in the British Commonwealth of Nations. He
stressed that this should be declared in clear and unequivocal terms
in the preamble of the Bill as the definite goal.
He did not favour the idea of vesting in the Governors the
power of promulgating ordinances; this power should be given only
to the Governor-General. He also advocated that the Fundamental
Rights of the people should be embodied in the proposed Act itself.
Sinha did not like that the office of the Chief Justice of the
Federal Court or Supreme Court, or of the High Court should even
temporarily be held by a member of the Indian Civil Service; it
should be open only to those who had practised at the Bar.
He advocated the extension of women’s franchise and the
transference of the powers of the Secretary of State in respect
of the Public Services to the Governor-General, assisted by a
Public Service Commission, the chairman and members of which
86 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

should be appointed by the Governor-General. In other words,

what he advocated was that the recruitment of members of the
services should in future be in the hands of the Governor-General,
in respect of offices in the Government of India, and in the hands
of the Governors in respect of offices under the Provincial Gov¬
ernments. The ultimate aim in this suggestion was to transfer the
right of recruitment to the provinces in order to give the ministers
complete control over the officers serving under them. Sinha
agreed with the warning of Dr. Ambedkar that if the White Paper
proposals regarding the services were enacted, then the process
of adapting the conditions of Civil Services to the responsible
system of government would be arrested.

Governor’s Special Powers

Sinha regarded it as inexpedient to vest in the Governor what

might be called extraordinary powers in respect of their special
responsibilities. In his view, any relief in the matter of commercial
discrimination should be had by the claimant only in courts—
Federal or other higher tribunals; it was wholly undesirable and
inexpedient to mix up the head of the executive with any such
controversies. He wanted that legislation of a discriminatory
character should be challengeable only in the Federal Court.
Sinha was against any proposal for vesting in the Governor
any legislative authority or power to arrest the progress of Bills
during their passage in the legislature. It was his view that no such
proposal should find a place in any scheme of provincial autonomy.
In reply to a question, in the course of his examination before
the Joint Parliamentary Committee, Smha said that the powers
proposed in the White Paper to be vested in the Governor-General
or the Governor were larger than those enjoyed by them in the
scheme of things in operation, and he felt that those powers could
be exercised by them in a way that might prove more oppressive
to the people than had till then been the case.

Joint Responsibility

Sinha had strongly advocated the establishment of joint respon-

RETURN TO PUBLIC LIFE 87

sibility in the Cabinet. He was almost sure that, on the establish¬

ment of joint responsibility, the party system would automatically
be evolved. In reply to C. R. Attlee, he informed the Committee
that under the prevailing system of Dyarchy, no governor of Bihar
and Orissa had ever recognised joint responsibility; they had al¬
ways dealt with each Minister separately, with the result that
whenever he so desired, he could easily overrule the Ministers.
He asserted that Indian public men generally possessed an ad¬
equate sense of responsibility and would not fail to discharge it
properly when responsibility was placed on them.

Self-government in Fair Measure

Sinha had pleaded in his memorandum for the modification and

extension of the White Paper proposals; he was not for their
wholesale rejection. He wanted to achieve if not a full measure
of self-government, at least a fair measure of it. Asked by Sir
Joseph Null to clarify as to what he exactly meant by it, he said
that the least that he would expect was that in the provinces the
Governor should be a constitutional head, acting solely upon the
advice of the ministry; and in the Central Government, except one
or two departments which might be reserved for some time, the
Governor-General also should follow the advice of the ministers.
That would be, in his view, a fair measure of self-government
which India wanted at that time. But, if Parliament was not
prepared to go beyond the White Paper proposals, he would prefer
to retain the then prevailing system rather than have the proposals
of the White Paper.
Further, in reply to Morgan Jones’ question, Smha said that
there was a large section of people among the politically-minded
classes who took the view that there was nothing to choose
between the White Paper proposals and the condition of affairs
as it would be without those proposals. In fact, he even said, in
reply to Cock’s question, that in many respects, e.g. in the matter
of control exercised by the Government of India or the Provincial
Governments, etc., upon the people, the proposals outlined in the
White Paper would make the position appreciably worse.
88 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

Indianisation of Army

Other suggestions made by Sinha for the modification of the

White Paper proposals related to the expeditions Indianisation of
the Army which, he thought, should be made the statutory obli¬
gation of the Governor-General. He wanted the proposal regarding
“excluded and partially-excluded areas”, to be abandoned. This
was because the aboriginal tracts of Chhota Nagpur and the
Santhal Parganas were proposed to be declared partially excluded
areas which would, he felt, cause great hardship by imposing
serious disabilities on the people, while the administration of those
areas would also deteriorate.

Second Chamber in Provinces

Sinha strongly advocated the deletion of the provision regard¬

ing bicameral legislatures in Bihar, Bengal, U.P., Bombay, Madras
and Assam. This question had formed the subject of a full-dress
debate in the Bihar and Orissa Legislative Council (on January 18,
1933) a couple of months before the publication of the White
Paper. As many as 69 members had taken part in that debate. The
elected non-official Indian members were equally divided—thirty
voting for the proposal and thirty against it. The resolution in favour
of having a second chamber in the provinces was, however, carried
with the help of the votes of six nominated non-officials, one ex-
officio Indian member and two elected European members.
Speaking in opposition to the proposal, Sachchidananda Sinha,
at the very outset, made it clear that any reference to the consti¬
tutions of various Western countries, which provided for bicameral
legislatures, had no relevance or application, because those states,
which formed the federal union, were sovereign bodies, and not
subordinate governments. Then again, the system of government
obtaining in America, he pointed out, was not parliamentary but
presidential, in which the President and the Governors of the States
were all chosen by election; as such, they were not responsible to
the legislature but to the people who chose them—the voters. But
it was beyond the imagination of the Bihar and Orissa Legislative
Council to think of choosing their Governor by election.
RETURN TO PUBLIC LIFE 89

Referring to the arguments advanced by the advocates of a

second chamber that the zamindars, who were in a minority, had
got certain right which required to be protected, Smha said that he
believed that the establishment of a second chamber in the Prov¬
inces would lead to a class-war on an extensive scale between the
zamindars, the tenants and the educated classes. So long as the
zamindars depended upon the protection of either the Government
or the second chamber, they would really never be able to succeed
in the battle of life. As regards the zamindars being in a minority,
Sinha submitted that the minority, in his opinion, did not mean “an
interest”. If one were to proceed on these lines, then each caste
and sub-caste, and each class or section here would be entitled to
ask for special protection. In his view, the apprehension that
existed in the minds of the public that by the establishment of a
second chamber, an effort was being made to bolster up the
interests of a particular class against the interest of the tenantry
and the educated classes was fully justified. He doubted that even
that object would be achieved, since the second chamber would
have no powers of initiation or appeal or veto; at best, it could only
delay matters.
Sinha quoted relevant passages from the Montagu-Chelmsford
Report, the Memorandum of the Bihar and Orissa Government
and the Report of the Central Committee of the Government of
India (which was associated with the Simon Commission) and
other important document in support of his contention that the
introduction of the second chamber would never be in the interest
of the zamindars, nor of the people at large, because there was
the danger that measures beneficial to the masses might be im¬
peded or delayed, and that might lead to aggravation of public
discontent.
Sinha did not agree with the suggestion of Sir Hubert Carr
(member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee) that, at a time
when suffrage was being largely extended in a country where the
majority of electors were illiterate, it would be desirable to create
a body representing experience and expert knowledge to act as
a stabilising factor; it would not compete for power with the Lower
House, but be able to revise or delay legislation for a short period.
90 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

He informed the Joint Parliamentary Committee that the proposal

for a second chamber in Bihar had met with strong opposition even
from the zamindars themselves who had gone in deputation to the
Governor for representing to that effect. In brief, Sinha considered
the second chamber a “useless luxury”.

Debate on J.P.C. Report

The report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee was pub¬

lished on November 22, 1933. A debate on the report was held
in the Bihar Legislative Council in January 1934 on the motion of
the Finance Member. An amendment that the following be added
to the motion was moved by Sinha :
“And having considered the scheme, recommended to Parlia¬
ment by the Joint Parliamentary Committee, the Council is of
opinion that, taking the said scheme as a whole, it is highly un¬
satisfactory, is grossly inadequate to meet popular aspirations, is
hedged round by unnecessary and undesirable safeguards, betray¬
ing a deep distrust of Indian capacity and character, and, above
all, proposed to introduce drastic changes in the composition and
constitution of the higher judiciary which are calculated to shake
the confidence of the public in judicial administration; and the
scheme is, therefore, not likely to evoke goodwill in its working
on the part of His Majesty’s Indian subjects.”
An almost similar amendment moved by Sinha had been
adopted unanimously by the Council earlier, in March 1933, during
the debate on the White Paper itself. At that time, it was suggested
that the proposals contained in the White Paper need substantial
modification for the reasons given in the amendment. The position
had remained the same or had been made even worse, Sinha
%

contended, after the publication of the Joint Parliamentary

Committee’s Report Quoting extensively from the observations of
the Labour members of the Committee like Major Attllee, Morgen
Jones and Cock, as also from the observations of Prof. Keith, Lord
Snell and the Maharajadhiraj of Darbhanga, Sinha conclusively
showed that, due to the modifications suggested by the Parliamen¬
tary Committee, the White Paper proposals had been “stiffened,
RETURN TO PUBLIC LIFE 91

truncated and conservatised”. The majority report of the Commit¬

tee, he pointed out, “has imitated the bad example set in the White
Paper scheme, of not even using anywhere the term Dominion
Status in relation to India’s political ideal even, so to say, by
mistake”, although Lord Irwin, with the express approval of His
Majesty’s Government, had, in his famous declaration of October
1929, categorically stated that Dominion Status was implicit in
Montagu’s Declaration of August 1917, which was embodied in
the Preamble of the Government of India Act, 1919, and which
was later reiterated by the Prime Minister of England, Ramsay
MacDonald, at the conclusion of the First Round Table Confer¬
ence.
Sinha further contended that the majority Report had failed
lamentably to meet even the moderate Indian views that the
sentiment of suspicion and lack of trust ran like a sinister view
throughout the Report; that the goodwill of the Indian people had
been sacrificed to the mummified prejudices of the British Con¬
servative Party; and that the scheme propounded therein was
wholly “goalless and soulless”. The only conclusion or the lesson
that one could derive from the perusal of the Report, according
to Sinha, was the “unimpeachable truth that nations by themselves
are made, that self-government is not to be had and cannot be had
as a concession or gift from the British Parliament, but it has to
be achieved by the Indians themselves by their own united effort.”
He quoted the following lines of Wordsworth which embody the
above lesson:
‘Tis well! from this day forward we shall know,
That in ourselves our safety must be sought,
That by our own right hands it must be wrought,
That we must stand unpropped or be laid low
O! dastard, whom such foretaste doth not cheer!’
Thanks to the disillusionment that came to her in time, India
did at last achieve her freedom by her own hands under the
guidance and inspiration of that supreme leader and Father of the
Nation—Mahatma Gandhi.
92 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

Abolition of Commissioners

The proposal to abolish the posts of Commissioners in the

States is another matter about which people had agitated for a long
time. In the course of a well reasoned and informative speech,
delivered in the Bihar Legislative Council on March 13, 1931, Sinha
made out a strong case in favour of the proposition that the balance
of advantage lay in the abolition of that office in the interest of
administrative economy. It is indeed an irony that, in spite of all
the strong arguments advanced from time to time in favour of the
abolition of this office, the Commissioners continue to exist even
today and are allowed to carry on merrily by the very persons who
had been agitating for it.

Criminal Tribes Act

In November 1932, the Government of Bihar had issued a

notification mentioning 45 persons, who were said to be political
offenders, and declaring them to be members of a group called
“Jogendra Shukul’s Gang”, which was to be treated as a criminal
tribe under the provisions of the Criminal Tribes act. Of these 45
persons, about thirty had at that time been serving their terms of
imprisonment either in the Andamans or in different jails within
the country; about ten of them had been tried and acquitted of the
crimes imputed to them, and only one had not even been proceeded
against. Yet, all of them had been declared by an omnibus noti¬
fication to be members of a “criminal tribe” for the purpose of
the said Act.
Sinha had raised his voice of strong protest against this no¬
tification in the course of a press statement. He had given notice
of his intention to raise this question in the Council by means of
a budget motion. Unfortunately, it did not come up. He had con¬
clusively shown that the Criminal Tribes Act was not at all meant
for this purpose and that this act of the Government of Bihar was
wholly unwarranted.
The important point that he emphasised in this connection was
that such a notification could be issued only if (a) there was a
RETURN TO PUBLIC LIFE 93

‘gang’ or class of persons, and (b) that gang was addicted to the
systematic commission of non-bailable offences. Now, the case
that Sinha made out was that “a mere aggregate of persons” did
not constitute a ‘gang’. A ‘class’ or ‘gang’, is a section of public,
having a definite connotation, common to all its members, with
distinctive characteristics to be found in each and every member
of the class, which were not to be found in those of any other
class or gang. It was obvious that in the case of the persons named
in the notification, there was nothing distinctive about them which
might be called a common characteristic of a gang. Secondly, this
‘gang’ could not be said to be addicted to the systematic com¬
missions of non-bailable offences; there was no proof of it at all.
Thirdly, under the Act, the Government had the power only to
declare any tribe, gang or a class of persons, as a criminal tribe,
but not to specify their names, which had been rightly left to the
District Magistrate before whom the proceedings were required
to be of a judicial character. His decision in the matter was subject
to revision by higher courts. Thus, by mentioning the names of the
members of the gang, Sinha contended, the Government had
clearly usurped the judicial function of the District Magistrate.
Further, with reference to the proceedings of the Imperial Leg¬
islative Council during 1910-11, when he himself was also a member
of that Council, he conclusively showed that the issue of notifi¬
cation was wholly wrong and unjustifiable. He quoted the Home
Member who had said: “Where societies are formed, consisting
of people of many different classes, with many different religions,
it is impossible to reduce all of them to any common denominator,
and for that reason it is quite impossible, even if we wished, to
provide for such a thing that an Act of such a nature should apply
to secret societies and, therefore, there should be no misappre¬
hension on that account”.

Sinha and the Congress

The association of Sachchidananda Sinha with the Indian

National Congress commenced as early as December 1888, when
he was still a student. He had attended its fourth session at
 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA
94

Allahabad as a visitor. It was only in 1896 that he joined the

Calcutta session of the Congress as a delegate from Allahabad
where he had settled down after getting himself enrolled in the
High Court as an advocate. Ever since, he had attended almost
every Congress session till 1919, and had taken an active part in
the Home Rule Movement of 1916-17. For a number of years,
he was a member of the All India Congress Committee as rep¬
resentative either of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh or
of Bihar.
In 1899, he made his first appearance on the platform of the
Congress. At the 15th session of the Congress at Lucknow, he
spoke in support of the resolution (moved by Ambika Charan
Majumdar) on the separation of the judiciary from the Executive.
This demand had become a sort of hardly annual ever since the
second Congress session in 1886.
Next year (in 1900), Sinha himself moved this resolution at the
16th session of the Congress at Lahore. In both his speeches, he
had emphasised that for the better administration of justice in the
country, its separation from the executive function was the most
urgent need, because instances of gross miscarriage of justice had
been taking place too frequently on account of the combination
of these two functions in the same official. He felt that the system
was more to blame than the officials who had to work under it.
At the seventeenth session of the Congress at Calcutta, in
1901, Sinha moved the resolution on Police Reform which was
then under the consideration of the Government of India. He
stressed that no satisfactory reform could be effected unless the
higher ranks of the police were recruited in larger number from
among educated Indians. Sinha argued that they would be con¬
versant with the language and habits, thoughts and the life of their
subordinates and would, therefore, be in a better position to ex¬
ercise effective control over them. For this purpose, he proposed
that the competitive examination for recruitment to the provisional
branch of the Police Service should be thrown open to Indians,
instead of being confined only of candidates of British descent, as
was then the case. He further advocated that the pay and pros¬
pects of the subordinate ranks of the police should be substantially
RETURN TO PUBLIC LIFE 95

improved so as to render the service more attractive to the better

class of the educated Indian community. Such a step, he felt, would
contribute to the efficiency and integrity of the police.
In 1902, at the Ahmedabad session of the Congress. Sinha was
again chosen to move the resolution on the same subject. This time,
he laid particular stress on the inadequacy of the representation
of capable, independent and experienced Indian on the Police
Commission which was collecting evidence with a view to sug¬
gesting measures for the reform of the Police. Sinha had appro¬
priately pointed out that of the two non-officials on the Commis¬
sion, one was “a C.I.E., always speaking to please Englishmen,
and the other a Maharaja, as yet untried”. He contented that unless
the grievances and the view-points of the people were properly
placed before the Commission, there was no possibility of any real
reforms being introduced in the police administration.
At the twentieth session of the Congress, held in Bombay in
1904, Sinha moved the resolution strongly supporting the candida¬
ture for membership of the British Parliament of Dadabhai Naoroji
from North Lambeth, Sir Henry Cotton from Nottingham and Sir
John Jardine from Roxburghshire, and appealing to the electors of
these constituencies to return them to Parliament in the interest
of India.
In this connection, he also supported another resolution in the
same session for sending a deputation of ‘‘trustworthy and rep¬
resentative Indians nominated by different provinces” to England
on the eve of the General Elections of 1905. The purpose was
to place the claims of Indians before the electors, and to raise a
fund of not less than Rs. 30,000 for this purpose.
The “Police Reforms” resolution was once again entrusted to
Sinha at the twenty-first session of the Congress, held at Banaras
in 1905 under the presidency of G. K. Gokhale. He bitterly com¬
plained that the Police Commission had sorely disappointed the
Indians inasmush as adequate measures had not been adopted to
improve materially the efficiency and the honesty of the police.
He also denounced the constitution of a Special Police Service
from which Indians were to be excluded. He reiterated the Con¬
gress demand that the Competitive examination for the recruitment
96 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

of higher police officers should be held both in England and in

India and should be thrown open also to educated Indians.
In 1910, at the twenty-fifth session of the Congress held at
Allahabad under the presidentship of Sir William Wedaerbum,
Sinha moved the resolution demanding that the Law Member of
Viceroy’s Executive Council may be chosen from amongst Ad¬
vocates, Vakils and Attorney-at-law of the Indian High Courts also,
instead of restricting the choice to the members of the English Bar.
In the same session, he pleaded for the establishment of Governor’s
Executive Councils in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh and
in the Punjab.

Member of Congress Deputation

Sinha was one of the members of the Congress deputation

which visited England in 1914, of which the leader was
Bhupendranath Basu, and, among its other members were M. A.
Jinnah, Lala Lajpat Rai, Rao Bahadur Narasimha Sharma and M.
N. Samanta.
At the Karachi session of the Congress, held in December
1913 under the presidentship of Nawab Syed Mohammad Bahadur,
a resolution was passed authorising the All-India Congress Com¬
mittee to arrange for a deputation representing the various prov¬
inces to go to London for putting before the Bntish public the views
of Indians on the following subjects :
(i) Indians in South Africa and other colonies, (ii) Press Act,
(lii) separation of the judiciary from the executive, and (iv) reform
of the India Council, on which the Congress had already expressed
its opinion.
Though the Congress resolution on the subject mentioned four
specific matters, the deputation was really organised in connection
with the reform of the India Council. The Secretary of State, Lord
Crew, was expected to introduce a Bill on the subject in the House
of Lords in the spring of 1914. The contents of the Bill were not
known at the time. The deputation left for London in April 1914.
As such, the Congress or the Indian public opinion had not been
able to express itself in favour of or against the Bill. When the
RETURN TO PUBLIC LIFE 97

Bill was actually introduced and its contents were known, there
was a difference of opinion among the members of the deputation,
the leader, Bhupendranath Basu, and some other were entirely in
favour of the Bill, while Lata Lajpat Rai and Sachchidananda Sinha
stood for introducing drastic amendments in it before it was adopted.
Sinha had characterised the Bill as ‘‘typically a milk-and-water
measure'1, which would satisfy no one. The Tory members of the
Lords and the Tory press of England had opposed the Bill on the
ground that it sought to provide for the election of Indian members
of the Council. In fact, they had unanimously declared their strong
opposition to the application of any kind of elective principle to the
Secretary of State’s Council. The Indian Press had also opposed
the Bill on the ground that it did not go far enough to make popular
representation adequate and effective. Lala Lajpat Rai and Sinha
were of the view that Indians would do better to agitate for the
complete abolition of the Council, which was a sort of white
elephant maintained at the cost of the Indian tax-payers.
The Bill was ultimately buried unwept, unhonoured and unsung
and no one, perhaps, was the worse for it.
The thirtieth session of the Congress, held at Bombay in 1915,
adopted a resolution acknowledging with deep gratitude the ser¬
vices rendered by the deputation.
 Champion of Education
T he advancement of higher education in Bihar was one of the
major causes championed by Sachchidananda Sinha. His con¬
tribution in this sphere deserves to be remembered with gratitude
by generations to come. He had been actively associated with the
Patna University ever since its inception. He was a prominent
member of the committee appointed by the Government, under the
presidentship of Sir Robert Nathan, to frame a scheme for the
establishment of a university at Patna. Later, he worked as a
member the University Syndicate and the Senate for a number of
years. He remained the University’s Vice-Chancellor for a period
of eight years. He was appointed honorary Vice-Chancellor in
1936 and continued to hold that office till 1944.
He was the first non-official to be appointed as Vice-Chan¬
cellor, his five predecessors having simultaneously held some other
post also under the government. His appointment was made in the
teeth of vehement opposition of the Director of Public Instruction
and other high officials of the Education Department, and thereby
hangs a tale. In the Patna University Act of 1917, under which
the University was set up, it was not made clear whether the Vice-
Chancellor was to be an honorary or a salaried officer. The first
Vice-Chancellor was J.G. Jennings, who was first a professor and
then the Principal of the Muir Central College, Allahabad. The next
was V. H. Jackson, who was the Principal of the Patna College.
Both happened to be salaried officers of Government. This led to
the growth of a feeling in the province against such a practice.
A resolution was moved in the Provincial Legislative Council to
that effect, and was carried in spite of the opposition of the
Government. Later, the Government announced that Jackson’s
successor would be an honorary Vice-Chancellor. Accordingly, on
the retirement of Jackson, the choice of the Government fell on
CHAMPION OF EDUCATION 99

Sir Syed Sultan Ahmed; who was the Government Advocate at

that time and enjoyed an extensive practice at the Bar. In spite
of his being a very busy person, he managed the affairs of the
University quite successfully. At the time of his retirement, the
questions, of the appointment of a new Vice-Chancellor again
came up. The Director of Public Instruction, who happened to be
a British member of the Indian Educational Service, manoeuvered
to get a European Judge of the Patna High court (Justice
Macpherson) appointed as honorary Vice-Chancellor. It was
believed that it had been done against the wishes of the Education
Minister, Sir Mohammad Fakhruddin.
Naturally, this provoked hostile criticism in the press and among
the public. As Leader of the Opposition in the Provincial Legislative
Council at that time, Sinha moved a cut motion, during the Budget
debate, to discuss the question whether, in view of the Government’s
declaration that no official of the State would be appointed to the
office of the Vice-Chancellor of the University, it was right and
proper to appoint a Judge of the High Court to that office. Sinha
pressed his point so strongly that the motion, if put to vote, might
have been carried. The Education Minister then suggested that the
motion might be withdrawn in view of the fact that its purpose had
been served, and the government now realised that public opinion
was very much against the nomination of an official as Vice-
Chancellor. The Minister also gave an assurance that, at the time
of filling up the next vacancy, the suggestion made by Sinha would
be kept in view. Thereupon the motion was withdrawal.
But, once again, the same Director of Public Instruction, who
had by now became more powerful than before, still ruled the
roost. The Education Minister’s assurance, given in the Council,
was coolly brushed aside and a High Court Judge, in the person
of Justice Khwaja Mohammad Noor, was appointed to succeed
Justice Macpherson. He managed the affairs of the University
with great tact and sympathy. He became quite popular by the time
his three-year term expired in August 1936.
The Education Minister, at this time, was Syed Abdul Aziz.
His predecessor, Sir Mohammad Fakhruddin, had passed away in
1933. The same Director of Public Instruction again tried to play
100 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

his old game. But this time he had caught a Tartar in Aziz. Public
opinion in favour of the appointment of a pure non-official, not in
any service of the Government, had become stronger than before.
The Education Minister had proposed the name of Sachchidananda
Sinha for the office of the Vice-Chancelor. This was opposed by
the Director of Public Instruction and there was a regular tussle
between the two. Ultimately, the Education Minister triumphed and
Sinha was appointed Vice-Chancellor in 1936 to succeed Justice
Khwaja Mohammad Noor. He continued in that office till 1944.
During his term of office, several new colleges were opened
and the University, in the word of Dr. Rajendra Prasad, turned a
new leaf by establishing research scholarships and fellowships.
Sinha was able to create as many as fifteen research scholarships
of the value of Rs. 100 each, and three fellowships of the value
of Rs. 150 each. Another notable step was the creation of a new
Faculty of Commerce. Again, it was due to Sinha’s initiative that
a course of technological study, and a scheme for the development
of Hindu and Urdu literature through original work, were introduced.
The Governor of Bihar and Chancellor of the University at
that time was Sir Francis Mudie, who was regarded as a civilian
of an extreme die-hard variety, not easily prone to appreciating
anything Indian. But even he, on the occasion of the unveiling of
sinha’s portrait in the Patna University Senate Hall, acknowledged
that Dr. Sinha’s record of public service as a lawyer, writer,
politician, administrator, and, finally, as an educationist over a
period of 50 years was unique. “He has touched nothing that he
has not adorned. Not only is education his latest public activity,
but it is, in a sense, a culmination of his work in other fields.”
Speaking of Sinha’s work as Vice-Chancellor, Sir Francis
further observed :
“A University covers a wider field than law. It has been
Dr, Sinha’s vocation, and there is nothing which relates to
human nature and human activity which is not of value to a
Vice Chancellor. He must at the same time be learned and
practical. He must appreciate the work of a true scholar
who pursues learning for learning’s sake, and, at the same
time, give full weight to the practical advantages of educa-
CHAMPION OF EDUCATION 101

tion. He must attend to the minute details of administration

without losing the vision necessary to inspire youth. Above
all, a Vice-Chancellor must be human and must appreciate
life and combine the wisdom, which is to be gamed only by
experience, with a readiness to develop new ideas. In Dr.
Sinha, all these somewhat conflicting qualifications are
combined in a remarkable manner. He has the broad
outlook of a scholar, a man of the world, and at the same
time, possess the grasp of details necessary for an admin¬
istrator of public funds. He has raised the standard of
learning in the University and increased its balances.”
Perhaps, a better and more correct estimate of Sinha’s work
and worth as Vice-Chancellor has not been made by anyone else.
It is not that Sinha’s interest in education started only with his
appointment as Vice-Chancellor of the University. It may, indeed,
be traced back to the days when he was appointed Secretary of
the Kayastha Pathshala in the year 1900. In that capacity, he
rendered immense service to that institution by raising large funds
for it and appreciably toning up its administration.
Sinha took an active part not only in the establishment of the
Patna University, but also played a leading role in the movement
for raising that University to the Status of a teaching university.
As noted above, sinha was one of the eight members of the Patna
University Committee which was appointed in 1913 under the
chairmanship of Robert Nathan, to frame a scheme for the es¬
tablishment of a University for Bihar and Orissa, subject to certain
conditions. One of these conditions was “that provision should be
made for a University, at or near Patna, of the teaching and
residential type, and for the affiliation to this central institution of
colleges situated at other places”.
This Committee in its report had, among other things, recom¬
mended that the proposed university, should be of a teaching and
residential type, and unitary in character. It was to be located
outside Patna, at Phulwari Sharif, about five miles from the town.
This University was to affiliate to it only colleges situated outside
Patna, which implied that the existing colleges in the town of Patna
would either be transferred to the University site or would alto-
102 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

gather cease to exist. This naturally evoked a strong public agi¬

tation in the province, mainly on the ground that an exclusively
residential University, situated far away from the town, prove so
costly as to deprive poor students of the benefits of higher edu¬
cation, particularly when the existing colleges in the town were
to cease to exist. The scheme propounded in this report had,
therefore, to be dropped. Instead, a Bill was introduced in the
Central Legislature by the then Education Member, Sir Sankaran
Nair. This Bill provided only for an affiliating, and not a teaching
and residential University. It was, however, so conceived that it
might develop ultimately into a teaching University. But the scheme
had some objectionable features. It provided for the constitution
of a Syndicate and a Senate of a type which virtually excluded
the non-official element and placed the University almost entirely
in the hands of men who were not expected to take an independent
and impartial view of things. These men were more likely to carry
out merely the orders of the Government, or act according to its
dictates. Consequently, a strong agitation was set up against this
Bill, too. It was led by Sachchidananda Sinha, Dr. Rajendra Prasad
(first President of the Indian Republic), Rai, Bahadur Pumendu
Narain Sinha, Rai Bahadur Dwarka Nath, Brij Kishore Prasad,
Baidyanath Narain Singh and others. The result was that the Bill
was considerably modified and improved upon and the Patna
University came into being as an affiliating LJniversity late in 1917.
Later, the controversy over the location of the University was
revived. This was at the time when sinha happened to be a
Member of the Bihar Executive Council. Ultimately, the popular
will triumphed and it was decided to locate the University inside
the town. Huge buildings were required to be constructed for the
purpose. As the Finance Member of the Government, Sinha was
of considerable help in finding the necessary funds for them.
In subsequent years, repeated efforts were made to introduce
teaching and research in this University. Sinha took a very impor¬
tant part in these efforts. If the Patna University today is a wholly
teaching University, with facilities for original research, the way
for it was to a large extent paved by Sinha before and during his
term of office as the Vice-Chancellor of the University.
CHAMPION OF EDUCATION 103
t
<

Linguistic Controversy
i
Sinha, as Vice-Chancellor of the Patna University, was a
member of the Bihar Educational Reorganisation Committee, which
was appointed by the first Congress Ministry, and of which that
eminent educationist, Prof. K. T. Shah, was the chairman, and
among its members were included such distinguished personalities
as Dr Rajendra Prasad and K. G. Saiyyidain. The Committee had
submitted three separate reports, relating to primary, secondary
and university education.
In the report on primary education, the Committee accepted
in principle that the mother-tongue of the student should be the
medium of instruction. It made the following observation : “In this
Province, luckily the population is almost entirely homogeneous,
and so the question of choosing a common medium of instruction
does not involve any great difficulty. Hindustani will serve for both
the Hindus and the Muslims, who make up the bulk of the popu¬
lation of the Province.” It further added : “The language, however,
must be written in both the Devanagari and the Arabic scripts, and
children must be familiarised with both before they complete their
basic minium education.”
Sinha, in a separate note attached to the Report, contested the
correctness of the above statement in regard to the mother tongue
of the people of Bihar. In his view, it was far from correct to say
that the people of Bihar were unilingual, as suggested by the
Committee.
At the same time, Sinha did not deny that Hindustani had long
been used in Bihar for the purpose of education, social inter¬
course, polite conversation, and official work. He agreed that it
had been, for centuries past, the sole literary language of the
province. He, therefore, did not differ from the opinion of the
Committee that Hindustani should be adopted as the medium of
instruction in primary schools.
Sinha was of the view that it would be a fatal mistake to invent
the theory of important cultural minorities in Bihar. “Once this
wholly unjustifiable theory was accepted in this State, it would
prove to be an insuperable handicap to the imparting of instruction
104 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

to students in primary schools though a common medium, like

Hindustani, as not only the two communities, the Maithils and the
Bengalis, but several others also will press a similar demand,
particularly the Magadhi-speakmg and the Bhojpun-speakmg com¬
munities.” In support of this point of view, he refereed to the report
of the committee dealing with the re-organisation of primary
education in U.P., wherein it was said that they did not favour the
suggestion of making the various local dialects of the people the
media of instruction. The U.P. committee had recommended that
the language used as the medium of instruction should be a literary
language.

No Neglect of English
It may be pertinent to mention here that, while sinha was in
favour of the idea of adoption of Hindustani as the medium of
instruction, he was equally emphatic in his view against discarding
or even neglecting the study of English.
In the course of his convocation address at the Nagpur Uni¬
versity in 1937, Sinha said that ‘the prejudice among some section
of our people against the study and use of English is probably due
to political considerations, bom of the assumption that it is the
exclusive property of the British”. He pointed out that it was
spoken today by more people outside Britain than inside and had
acquired the status of an international language.

Secondary Education

Sinha fully agreed with the criticism of several other educa¬

tional experts that the system of training in our secondary schools
was “intensely dominated by University requirements, that pupils
and teachers alike become, as it were, hypnotised by the lure of
Matriculation, while the teaching imparted to them is confined to
but a lifeless preparation for that all-important examination, wholly
regardless of its adaptability to life's large requirements’. He,
therefore, pleaded for a thorough re-organisation of the secondary'
school system so as to make it self-contained, practical and useful
CHAMPION OF EDUCATION 105

for the main concern of life, rather than as a mere stepping stone
to obtaining a university degree. He endorsed the recommendation
of the Central Advisory Board that candidates desirous of joining
the subordinate clerical service of Government and local bodies
should be required only to pass some qualifying examination.
Sinha further strongly advocated the urgent need and desir¬
ability of improving the lot of teachers in secondary schools, as
also of improving the efficiency of non-Govemment schools. He
emphasised that the policy of Government should not be limited
to maintaining only a few Government schools—howsoever effi¬
ciently managed—but to raise the condition and standard of non-
Govemment schools also, so that they might also become more
efficient than they are at present. He, therefore, pleaded the
Government should make strenuous efforts to bring private schools
to the same standard by a much larger expenditure on secondary
education and by an equitable distribution of their grants-in-aid.
Sinha stressed the need for a harmony of efforts and ends.
He said, “While we must have properly qualified teachers working
in suitable conditions and maintaining a reasonable standard of
existing in the midst of struggle, the surroundings also in which our
children grow and work should be made congenial. At the same
time, the system of work also should be the best possible. Serious
efforts should, therefore, be made in these directions and the
following conditions fulfilled : (1) “Well-organised system of pri¬
mary education for all boys and girls between certain ages; (2)
a well-organised system of secondary education, efficiently im¬
parted under suitable conditions, with special reference to the
requirements of modem life; and (3) a suitable system to divert
secondary education into proper channels, suited to the economic
needs of the country, always keeping in view the cultural back¬
ground so as to maintain a high morale in every wralk of life.”

Advice to Students

Convocation addresses are said to be generally dull and

dreary. Sinha’s addresses, however, read as fresh and interesting
even today, although they were delivered more than thirty years
106 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

back. The critic may, to some extent, find in these addresses

something of what may be called ‘platitude’ or ‘commonplace’.
But, as Sinha himself said, “much of what passes for original in
popular estimation, in the press, on the platform, in lecture rooms
or elsewhere, is generally the conventional and the commonplace.’
He, however, asked his audience not to be afraid of listening to
and pondering over them, for what they are worth, “for none of
us can do without them—platitudes (as concentrated experience
of humanity) being a basic concomitant of life”.
Sinha was a believer in the dictum of Lord Action that “the
pursuit of a remote and ideal object arrests the imagination by
its splendour and captivates the reason by its simplicity, and thus
calls forth energy which would not be inspired by a possible
national end, confined to what is reasonable, practical and just”.
He also firmly believed in the wisdom of the Greek saying that
“to blot out a high ideal is to take the spring out of the years”.
Therefore, he advised young men to cherish high ideals, but not
airy or fantastic ideals, incapable of realisation. “What the country
needs most at present,” he said, “is harmony between the ideal
and the practical. In our political, social and economic life, what
we need, above every thing else, is a balance, a perfect poise,
so that from a position of controlled elevation, we may assimilate
all that is best in our surroundings, rejecting all the rest as poi¬
sonous substances”. His appeal was “to pursue the path of the
wise, who, in their march towards the designed goal, neither
deliberately shut their eyes to realities, nor allow themselves to
be blinded by the momentary glares of the flushing novelties
of shibboleths, stunts and slogans”. Quoting President Theodore
Roosevelt, he emphasised that “commonsense was essential, above
all other qualities, to the idealist, for an idealist without
commonsense, without the capacity to work for actual results,
was merely a boat that was all sails with neither ballast nor
rudder”. He warned young men also against what is called
‘impatient idealism’. He explained that “real advance by people
in any sphere of activity is only very slowly achieved, and that,
if it is to be permanent or enduring, it must be built up by a
very slow process”. He was a believer in the Spenserian prin-
CHAMPION OF EDUCATION 107

ciples of political and social evolution based upon organic conditions

and a proper and harmonious development of intelect and emotion.

Importance of Character

Another important point that Sinha impressed upon young men

was the utmost need on their part to elevate their character and
to acquire “moral and political virtues as an essential part of their
training and self-culture'’. The students of history and sociology,
said he, “will undoubtedly confirm my view that, ever since the
dawn of political consciousness, men have acted upon the con¬
venient but ill-founded belief—as we are still doing today—that
their social and economic well-being depended upon political
constitution or political status rather than on themselves; that is,
not so much on their individual actions, habits and character as
on their obtaining greater political freedom and rights embodied in
the constitution. In taking this wholly wrong view, it has been
usually forgotten that the government of any people is bound to
be the reflex of the character and capacity of the individuals
comprising it, with the inevitable result that the administration that
is ahead of the people will unfailingly be dragged down in due
course, and that which is behind them will have, in the long run,
to be levelled up”.
Further, Sinha also emphasised that our young men should
remember that their success in life depended no less upon the
preservation of sound health than on development of good and
steady habits, high moral character or intellectual equipment. He
desired every young man and woman of the country to live up to
the highest conception of patriotism as depicted in the following
inspiring lines of Byron :
“We must forget all feelings save the one,
We must resign all passions save our purpose,
We must behold no object save our country;
And only look on death as beautiful
So that the sacrifice ascent to Heaven
And draw down freedom on her ever more.”
108 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

Higher Education

Sinha was not one of those who discredited the present system
of higher education imparted in the universities, as responsible for
many of the evils prevalent in the country and who, in particular,
pointed to the acute unemployment among educated Indians as
solely due to higher university' education. Not that he regarded the
education as imparted in our present-day universities as perfect
in any way; but at the same time, he was firmly of the view that
with all their imperfections and limitations, “it is the Indian univer¬
sities that have mainly contributed to the birth and growth of that
modem India which is pulsating with a new life and throbbing with
noble ideals and lofty aspirations”. He felt fully satisfied that these
universities “had not only produced greatest Indian administrators,
industrialists, lawyers, judges, reformers, scientists and statesmen,
but had disturbed the placid and pathetic contentment of large
sections of our people, both amongst the educated classes and the
masses, contributed substantially to our mental, moral, social and
political progress.and thus deserves well of leaders of public
opinion rather than be held up to contumely”. He was not unmind¬
ful of the fact that much yet remained to be done to make
university education more intensely purposive than had so far been
the case. “We should be eternally vigilant”, he said, “to see to it
that our universities do not generate into mere manufactories for
supplying the professional requirement of society—artisans, farm¬
ers, doctors, engineers, lawyers and mechanics et hoc genus
omme. We continue to insist that they do not forget to implant in
youthful minds the higher values of education.and imprint on
them the seal of gentlemanliness by endowing them with those
great virtues—adaptability to environment, courage of conviction,
mental equipoise, presence of mind, resourcefulness in difficult
surroundings, spirit of self-sacrifice and zeal for public service—
without which none should hope to live a full life and realise one’s
personality”.
Sinha did not believe that university education was solely
responsible for acute unemployment among educated classes or
that the problem would be solved if steps were taken to discourage,
CHAMPION OF EDUCATION 109

if not to abolish altogether, university education.

Sinha suggested : “Let the education system be recast, revised
and reorganised as you will, but there is a world of difference
between reforming university education and discouraging it alto¬
gether”. He would, on no account, sacrifice university education
“on the utterly false plea of solving the unemoloyment problem or
encouraging technical education”. Technical education alone, he
did not believe, would be any solution of the unemployment prob¬
lem unless active steps were taken to provide avenues for utilising
the available talents by a well laid-out policy of industrial organisation
and encouragement of indigenous enterprise.
 Services to Orissa
F or a long stretch of time, Orissa remained a part of the province
of Bihar and Orissa, which Sinha was instrumental in creating.
He always had a soft comer for the people of orissa and respect
for their sentiments and feelings. He tried to help, in every possible
way the realisation of their aspirations.
In 1913, Sinha was a candidate for re-election to the Imperial
Legislative Council. At that time, the new province of Bihar and
Orissa had already come into being. Till then no person from Orissa
had been returned to the Imperial Legislative Council. There was
a strong feeling in Orissa on this point. In an open letter, Madhusudan
Das, who was a highly respected and prominent leader of Orissa,
appealed to Sinha to withdraw his candidature in his favour. The
latter readily responded, allowing Das to be unanimously elected.
Earlier, in 1912, Sinha had played an important part in prevail¬
ing upon the Viceroy to veto an extremely contentious tenancy
legislation to which the people of Orissa were strongly opposed.
There were only two representations of Orissa in the Bengal
Council in those days—Madhusudan Das and the Raja of Kanika.
The Lieutenant Governor, Sir William Duke, and the Members of
his Executive Council, consisting of two British civilians and an
Indian Raja, were determined to push the legislation through before
March 31, 1912. In accordance with the King’s proclamation at
the Delhi Darbar in December 1911, the new province of Bihar
and Orissa was to come into being on April 1, 1912. The Bengal
Governor wanted to make the Bill into a law before Orissa slipped
from his hold. The voices of the two representatives of Orissa in
the Bengal Legislative Council against the Bill were like a cry in
the wilderness. They approached Sinha to try to get the Bill vetoed
by the Viceroy, if it was passed.
The Viceroy at that time was Lord Hardinge. Sinha happened
SERVICES TO ORISSA 111

to meet him at a reception in the Calcutta Government House and,

in the course of the conversation, he mentioned the subject to him
most tactfully. He told him that, only a month later, Bihar and
Onssa would have a Legislative Council of its own, in which Orissa
would be properly represented. It would be only fair to leave the
consideration of such a contentious measure to be new Legislative
Council rather than to get it enacted in a hurry by the expiring
Bengal Council. Sinha suggested to him that it could not become
law without His Excellency’s assent. Lord Hardinge, thereupon,
straightway said that he would refuse assent to the measure. Sinha
asked Lord Hardmge to consult his Law Member (Sir All Imam)
also on the subject.
In accordance with the declaration of His Maj esty King George
V, the capital of India had been shifted from Calcutta to Delhi.
The viceroy was leaving for Delhi the next day. A large crowd
of Calcutta notables had gathered on this day in the hall of the
Government House to bid farewell to the Viceroy. The time fixed
for His Excellency’s departure was 3 p.m., and it was expected
that the Viceroy would come at least half an hour earlier to take
leave of the people assembled there. But it was only at about 3.30
p.m. that the Viceregal party, consisting of the Viceroy, the Lieu¬
tenant Governor (Sir William Duke) and the Law Member, Sir all
Imam, emerged from the corridor. Immediately, the Viceroy started
bidding good-bye to those assembled. When he came up to Sinha,
he told him : “I have vetoed the Orissa Bill, although Sir William
Duke pressed me hard to give my assent to it. All Imam will tell
you the whole story.”
Later, in the evening, Sir All Imam told Sinha how there was
a regular tussle between the Viceroy and the Lieutenant Governor.
The latter had said all that he could to induce Lord Hardings to
give his assent to the bill and had even appealed to him, in the
name of British prestige and the local Government’s honour, to
account his formal consent to the enactment of that measure.
The next morning, the news was prominently splashed in the
newspapers and there was tremendous excitement in the press.
The Statesman, commenting editorially, paid sinha the compliment
of being a “shrewd politician”, who was wholly responsible for
112 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

having brought about the contretemps in which Sir William Duke

and his Government had found among various British administra¬
tive units.
Sinha played an important part in the constitution of the sepa¬
rate province of Orissa, composed of the Oriya-speaking tracts,
which had been, for more than a century, divided had moved a
resolution on the subject in the Imperial Legislative Council in
February 1920. This resolution had led Government to initiate
official discussion on the subject.
Later, in August 1931, he was invited by the Government to
serve as an associate member of the Boundary Commission which
was set up to carve out the new province of Orissa. His inclusion
in the Commission was naturally hailed with great satisfaction both
in Bihar and in Orissa. He found the work as a member of the
Commission too exacting due to his advanced age, for it meant
considerable travelling. The Commission had to visit the outlying
parts of five provinces, namely, Bihar, orissa, Bengal, Madras and
the Central Provinces. But he did not at all mind the trouble,
interested keenly as he was in the creation of a separate Orissa
province. The report of the Commission went a long way in
meeting the wishes of the people of Orissa. Sinha had the sat¬
isfaction not only of taking the lead, but of also living to see the
realisation of the object. The new province of Orissa came into
being on April 1, 1936.
 The Man
T hough he had won distinction in public life and politics, Smha
was essentially a man of learning and culture. He was easily
“one of the best-read men among the political leaders of the time”.
No visitor to Sinha’s house could help getting lost in the world of
books that he had set up in his library. In the words of Dr. Radha
Kumud Mukherjee, Smha’s “knowledge of books was remarkably
up-to-date; the latest arrivals at his library were first perused by
him and profusely marked in red and blue before they were
accessioned”.
He had a deep and abiding interest in Hindi and Urdu literature.
He used to keep a selected set of neatly bound standard works
in both the languages and would often turn for relaxation and
enjoyment to these books. He was a great admirer of Tulsidas’s
Ramacharitamanas and it was indeed a pleasure to hear him
quote from memory verse after verse from that great epic. Equally
great was his interest in Urdu. He had carefully studied the works
of the Urdu masters and had memorised their important and oft-
quoted lines.
Sinha had a wonderful memory; quotations and references
used to be, so to say, at the tip of his tongue. He could at once
tell you what standard books one should read on a particular
subject, or where you could get a particular information. He even
remembered the shelf in which a particular book was to be found
in his library. His wonderful memory helped him embellish his
speeches and writings with apt and beautiful quotations.
He wielded a facile pen and was exceptionally meticulous in
the choice of his expressions. His regard for truth, accuracy of
details, authenticity of reference, and his skill in the marshalling
of facts and figures, all indicated the vitality and versatility of his
intellect.
114 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

His book on Poet Iqbal is an outstanding work of criticism in

modem Indian literature, noted as much for its deep study and
understanding of the poet, as for its clarity of analysis and vigour
of expression. In the words of that distinguished scholar, Dr.
Amamath Jha, he “has brought to bear upon this study a vast
knowledge of European and Oriental literature, an amazing memory,
complete freedom from narrow interest and sympathies, which is
the secret of the universal respect which he and his writings
enjoy........Dr. S inha’s encyclopaedic learning, his critical acumen,
his straight forwardness, and the courage of his convictions will
impress all readers of his book. It will long remain a monument
to his industry, his thoroughness and his determination to state the
truth as he sees it”. Commenting editorially, the Leader of Allahabad
acclaimed it as “the best study so far written of all phases of the
life and work of Ibqal—richly documented and written with im¬
partiality, and revealing deep acquaintance with Persian thought
and Urdu literature ”
Another interesting and well-documented book of Sinha is
called Kashmir—the Playground of Asia* , which may serve as
a good guide to tourists to that ‘paradise on earth’.
Another book, Some Eminent Contemporaries of Bihar**,
contains short sketches of some of his contemporaries in Bihar,
whom he had known most intimately for a long period, but who
were no longer living at the time of the publication of the book.
As such, several of his living contemporaries, like Dr. Rajendra
Prasad, Brij Kishore Prasad, Dr. Anugrah Narayan Sinha, Dr.
Srikrishna Sinha and others, whom also he had known most in¬
timately, had been left out. However, the book is highly informative
and provides delightful reading.
Smha was a true devotee of Godess Saraswati. Till the last
days of his life, he remained a student par excellence, possessing
an insatiable thirst for knowledge.

* Kahshmir—the Playground of Asia, published by Messers Ram Narain La’ &

Sons, Allahabad.
**Some Eminent Contemporaries of Bihar, published by the Himalaya Press,
Patna.
THE MAN 115

Law and Literature

Early in life, while studying law in London at the hon’ble

Society of the Middle Temple, Smha was advised by a Scotch
friend to read not only law books but also imaginative literature,
including of course, the whole of Scott’s Waverly Novels. The first
books he took up was Guy Manuring. He was specially struck
by the scene in this book where a legal character, Pleydill, says
: “A lawyer without history or literature is a mechanic, a mere
working mason; if he possesses some knowledge of those, he may
call himself an architect”. These words made such a deep impres¬
sion on Sinha’s young and susceptible mind that he resolved to
become, if possible, a ‘legal architect’ according to the definition
of Scott. This effort led him into fruitful channels, broadened his
outlook and made him so useful to his province and country.
In the course of a very interesting and illuminating discourse
on ‘Law and Literature’, delivered at a meeting of the Casual Club
at Patna in 193 7, Sinha advised his lawyer friends, whose everyday
work lies amidst “brawling courts and dusty purlieus of the law”,
that they might very well vary and lighten the inevitable arduous¬
ness of their professional work by excursions into some of the most
delightful fields of imaginative and inspiring literature. In fact, he
believed, that no lawyer could claim to be justly entitled to the
conventional and honorific epithet of Teamed’, if his learning is
confined merely to law reports, statutes and legal text books. A
lawyer’s mental domain, he believed, should extend over all branches
of human life and activity, as reflected in literature in the broadest
sense of the term. Sinha, without doubt, eminently fulfilled these
qualifications to be called Teamed’.
Sinha was a lawyer by profession, and a very successful and
clever lawyer too, reputed for his legal acumen, able advocacy and
effective cross-examination. Indeed, as a crossexaminer, he had
few equals. He was one of the few top lawyers who enjoyed high
reputation for their skill in that art.
He had enjoyed a fairly large and lucrative practice, both in

* The text of Dr. Sinha’s is printed at pages 525-533 in Speeches and Writings (Second
Edition) on Sachchidananda Sinha published by Thaker Spink & Co., Calcutta.
116 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

and outside Bihar. In particular, because of his reputation for deep

study and wide knowledge of Constitutional law and Legal History,
his services were in great demand by the Indian Princes, who
sought his advice and help in matters pertaining to their treaty rights
and privileges vis-a-vis the British Government.
A case involving the then self-governing Indian States and the
British Residents, on which Sinha’s advice was sought, may be
worth mentioning. The question was whether the Resident of an
Indian State was entitled to send for the record of any case—civil
or criminal—which had been tried and disposed of by the State
courts to satisfy himself that no miscarriage of justice had occurred
or for any other purpose, as a certain Resident in a State had done.
In other words, the question was whether the Resident was entitled
to claim any kind of appellate or revisional or even supervisional
jurisdiction over the proceedings, judgments, orders or sentences
passed by courts of competent jurisdiction in the territories of self-
governing Indian States.
After carefully examining the question, Sinha recorded his
opinion* that the Resident could not claim to posses any such right,
either on the basis of any treaty between the British Government
and the State, or under general principles of law—constitutional,
political or international—or any long-established and well-defined
convention. Nor could it be argued that the supremacy of the
British Government, as the Paramount Power in India, gave any
such right to the Resident.
Sinha was also the author of the Banaras State Constitutional
Reforms Report of 1939, in the course of which he had ably
discussed and explained the implications, of a responsible govern¬
ment. Concluding this Report, he rightly opined that “the respon¬
sibility for the ultimate success of a constitution rests far more on
the political leaders than on its framers. The constitution-makers
can but frame a skeleton which can be vitalised by the infusion
into it of those progressive traits which constitute the political
character of a people. It is, therefore, to the development of a
healthy and wholesome political character in the people that those
anxious for the establishment of responsible government should
address themselves, since, as emphasised by Herbert Spencer (in
THE MAN 117

the Social Studies) “ a nation’s institution are determined by its

character” and “no philosopher’s stone can produce golden con¬
duct out of leaden instincts”.

Personal Qualities

Sachcidananda Sinha’s unique social qualities, in the words of

Sarojini Naidu, the Nightingale of India, were “no less admirable
and valuable to the generation is which he lived and worked than
his intellectual attainments”. “I know few men”, she adds, “with
his happy gift for attracting the cordial and enduring regard of the
most diverse types of men and women. A splendid host, he has
always been able to gather under his hospitable roof persons of
all races, ranks and religions in harmonious intercourse, irrespec¬
tive of the most startling divergences of personal and political
views on vital problems. His ironic wit and humour have been the
delight of his large circle of associates and admirers. He is a man
of deep affection and generous loyalties, and has rendered to his
country and countrymen signal services which have earned well-
merited gratitude”.
Anyone visiting Patna from outside and known to him either
by personal contact, or even by correspondence, was always
welcome to stay with him and to enjoy his lavish hospitality. In
fact, he (or she) would not be allowed to stay anywhere else. Thus,
rarely a day passed when his house would be without a guest. It
was almost impossible for him to sit down at his dinner table
without some guest. An interesting story illustrating Smha’s hos¬
pitality may well be recalled here. In the days when Smha lived
at Patna, there was practically no good hotel there. A French chef
from Calcutta opened a small hotel, but only three or four months
later, he decided to closedown his establishment. The French chef
had been an acquaintance of Sinha in Calcutta. Before leaving
Patna, he came to bid good-bye to Sinha. On being asked by sinha
the reason for closing down his hotel, he replied : “What can I
do, sir, I feel that no hotel can prosper in Patna so long as your
free hotel is there.”
Sinha always lived well and was a connoisseur of all the good
118 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

things of life. As in many other subjects, he was well-versed in

the art and science of gastronomy. He was fastidious in his choice
of dishes. He possessed the great and rare quality of never
allowing political or other differences to affect his personal rela¬
tions with anyone. Among his guests used to be persons of all
classes and shades of opinion.
Even when he was a Member of the Governor’s Executive
Council, when the Non-cooperation Movement was at its peak,
with the Government’s harsh repressive measures in full sway,
sinha continued to invite and entertain his Congress friends at his
house, regardless of what the Governor and his European col¬
leagues thought of it. One such occasion may be recalled here.
On a cold December night in 1921, a number of prominent Con¬
gressmen, including men like Rajendra Prasad, Brij Kishore Prasad,
Sri Krishna Sinha, Anugrah Narain Sinha and others, had gathered
at Sinha’s house for dinner. As they were sitting down at the table,
a message was received that Maulvi Shafi, along with a number
of other Congress leaders of Muzaffarpur, had arrived at the Patna
Railway Station. These persons had been convicted and sentenced
to various terms of imprisonment for taking part in the Non-
cooperation Movement and were being taken to Buxar Central
Jail. Rajendra Prasad and others wanted to go and meet them.
Sinha Sahib—as he was affectionately known—would not allow,
at least the elderly among them, to walk to the Railway Station
on that cold night. Without the least hesitation, he sent them in his
car to the Railway Station. The next morning, the Chief Secretary,
E. L. L. Hammond, and, perhaps, the Governor too, expressed
their unhappiness at this. Sinha was not a man to take it lying down
and straightway told them that he was not at all sorry for it. He
firmly made it clear that he was not prepared to allow his official
position or political differences to interfere with his social relations
and courtesies with friends, whether Congressmen or non-Con-
gressmen. This was typical of Sinha and it shows the stuff he was
made of. He remained a staunch nationalist and an ardent patriot
throughout his career, whether official or non-official.
He often used to say: “Thank God! I owed my membership
of the Executive Council not to any white man but to an Indian
THE MAN 119

(meaning Lord Sinha).” He even gloried in the fact that he was

not made a Knight at the time of retirement as was usual for
Members of the Executive Council. In fact, the author has personal
knowledge of the fact that once when Sinha came to know that
his name was being considered for that honour, he persuaded the
high-ups in the official hierarchy to drop his name. He even
conveyed it to the Governor that it would be very embarrassing
both for him as well as for the Governor, if he refused the honour
after it had been conferred on him.

Generosity and Tolerance

Generosity and a spirit of tolerance were second nature with

Sinha. He was incapable of nursing any ill-will towards anybody,
not even towards those who had done a bad turn to him, or who
habitually opposed and criticised him. Instances are not wanting
when he had to face stiff opposition from unexpected quarters,
which made him at times feel bitter. But this reaction was only
momentary. One such occasion was when, in the election to the
Bihar Assembly as a representative of the Patna University, he
was opposed by a candidate nominated by the Congress. He had
felt it all the more because he (Sinha) always regarded himself
as a Congressman even though he had seceded from the Congress
on the issue of non-cooperation. To quote his own words, he
regarded it as “nothing short of an outrage”, since his opponent
just managed to escape by one vote the forfeiture of his security
money. Whatever his personal feelings, he did not find fault with
Congressmen in Bihar for this. He declared that the fault was not
theirs, but of the system to which they were wedded.
Another instance of his large-heartedness and sympathy for
fellow beings is furnished by an incident at his house at Allahabad.
One day, an educated young man who had just returned from
England and was stranded for want of funds went to Sinha with
an appeal for help. Sinha at once asked him to come to his house
and he started living there as his guest. In those days, Sinha had
been living permanently at patna, and visited Allahabad only
occasionally. After some time, during Smha’s absence from
 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA
120

Allahabad, the guest, one day, despatched the servants of the

house on various errands, stealthily removed all the furniture of
the room occupied by him and suddenly disappeared from the
house. Later, it was found that he had sold the furniture to some
one and with the proceeds thereof he had met the cost of his
journey to Musoone on a pleasure trip. The matter was reported
to Sinha at Patna, but the latter not only took no step against him,
but even went out of his way to secure a decent job for him, and
also to help him financially and otherwise.
In a controversy, however, Sinha would not spare his opponent
even if he was near and dear to him. But, curiously enough, he
would not take long to forget and forgive, once again becoming
a friend and benefactor. That is why he never made an enemy
or lost a friend and could retain till the last the love and affection
of all who ever came into contact with him. At times, he annoyed
some persons by telling them bluntly what they deserved to be told.
It may have appeared to them at the time to be rude and insulting.
But, in their calmer moments, even they recognised that there was
no malice or ill-will in all that he had said, that his anger or
annoyance was momentary and that the possessed a kind and
affectionate heart.

A Brilliant Conversationalist

As a brilliant conversationalist, Sinha had few equals. It was

a treat to be in his company. His almost inexhaustible fund of
anecdotes, his intimate accounts of men and things with apt
quotations from standard English authors or Hindi and Urdu verse,
aphorisms and sayings used to delight and impress his listeners.
These talks used to be both serious and light, as occasion de¬
manded, and on a variety of subject.

Sense of Homour

In the course of a paper read by him on “Bulls and Blunders”

at the Bihar Youngmen’s Institute (Patna) in 1940, Sinha regretted
that humour, which was so prominent a feature of Western litera¬
ture, did not have the same place in the literature of the East.
THE MAN 121

“While there is much to admire”, he said, “in the literature of many

of the Asiatic countries—notably India, Arabia, Iran and China—
yet, in the literature of none of them do we find authors who betray
a sense of humour in their works to the same extent as is to be
found in the literature of Britain or France. While we, Indians, have
been endowed by Providence with many redeeming qualities, we
have been practically denied the saving grace of humour, owing
to which our speeches and writings are usually dull, ponderous and
portentous.The thundering declamations of our orators, the
hyper-critical speeches and writings of our political leaders, the
ponderous platitudes of our editors, and the learned discussions in
our law courts are usually most dreary and a source of weariness
to the flesh. They are scarcely ever lit up with sparkling wit or
humour or even rendered laughter-provoking by the perpetration
of a clever mistake.”
This certainly was not the case with Smha’s speeches and
writings. He possessed a keen sense of humour and the rare gift
of uttering even serious and unpalatable truth in such a humorous
way that it provoked laughter even in the intended victim of his
fun or attack. To some, his humour might have appeared as
bordering on the mischievous, but it was never vulgar or smacked
of ill-will. His speeches were usually lit up with a brilliant wit and
subtle humour and were never dreary. A few samples of his
humorous writings, collected in his book Speeches and Writings *
may well be described as of high literary standard, which may even
today be read with considerable interest and delight.

Other Qualities

Sinha was very methodical in his everyday life; he may well

be said to be ‘method-incarnate’. He was strictly regular in his
habits; everything had a time fixed for it and it had to be done
at that time. Here lay the secret of his ability to do a large volume
of work every day even in his old age.
There may be few who could compare favourably with Sinha

* Speeches and writings of Sachchidananda Sinha, published by Thacker Spink

& Co., Calcutta.
122 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

in the matter of promptness and regularity in correspondence. His

daily ‘dak’ used to be very heavy, but no letter would remain
unreplied or un-acknowiedged. Every letter was disposed of the
same day. The large number of newspapers received every day
would also receive his scrutiny with the trained and discerning eyes
of a journalist. This was evident from the innumerable cuttings
taken from most of them on a variety of subject. Thus, his daily
output of work was truly amazing. It is true that Sinha’s life of
ease and comfort made it possible for him to indulge in things which
may not be possible for others. Nonetheless, his example of
methodical work and regularity of habits deserves to be emulated
by the present generation of young men and women.
Another trait of his personality that deserves to be mentioned
here was his punctiliousness in matters of social etiquette. He
would not invite anyone at any social function in his house who had
not either called on him or who did not maintain regular social
relations with him. When he was the Finance Member of the Bihar
Governor’s Executive Council, he did not invite the Finance Sec¬
retary (who was a European l.C.S. officer) to a dinner at his house
at which the Governor and a number of officials and non-officials
had been invited. This was so because the Finance Secretary had
failed to extend to him the usual courtesy of calling upon him after
his return from long leave. This was noticed by Sir Hugh McPherson,
another Member of the Executive Council. A day before the
dinner, he rang up Sinha and enquired as to why that particular
officer had been ignored by him. In reply, Sinha plainly told him that
he had not been courteous enough to call on him after his return
from leave. “Oh ! Is that so? It was grossly improper on his part
not to have called on you”, said Sir Hugh. Within half an hour or
so, the officer concerned came to Sinha with profuse apologies; he
was immediately given an invitation card.
Sinha did not like anyone going to him dressed slovenly. He
had a particular weakness for headgear and would not tolerate
anyone expected to wear a cap but going to him bare-headed. It
may sound strange, but he regarded it as bad manners. Similarly,
he had a weakness for his native dialect ‘Bhojpuri”, which is
spoken in a fairly large area of Bihar as also in several eastern
THE MAN 123

districts of Uttar Pradesh. He was by nature very inquisitive and

always tried to know everything in detail about a person who met
him for the first time. In that way almost everyone who came into
contact with him was intimately known to him.

Apostle of Hindu-Muslim Unity

Sinha not only preached and worked for Hindu-Muslim amity,

but actually set a personal example as one completely free from
any communal bias or prejudice. All his life, he was on the best
of terms with his Muslim fellowmen and fully enjoyed their con¬
fidence, both in public dealing and private life. Some of his most
intimate friends happened to be Muslims. He maintained the most
cordial social relations with them all his life. In his own way, he
always worked for promoting amicable relations between the two
communities. His Hindustan Review had a glorious record of
fostering inter-communal unity. For many years, the Review con¬
tinued to inspire its large number of readers to work for this cause.
Sinha’s contribution to the solution of the Hindu Muslim cause was
by no means confined to the Hindustan Review. He had inspired
many other journals and newspapers also to work for this cause
by writing in their columns.
Though he was opposed, in principle, to separate electorates yet
he had suggested a compromise formula in his presidential address
at the second session of the Bihar Provincial conference at Bhagalpur
in 1909. It had been widely welcomed at the time and had the full
support of Gopal Krishna Gokhale, who was himself present at that
conference. The Minto-Morley Reform was on the anvil at that time.
Lord Minto, in reply to the Muslim deputation, had practically
assured them that they would get separate representation. This was
not liked by the Hindus. The essence of Sinha’s compromise
proposal was that a substantial number of seats should be thrown
open to election on a territorial basis, in which all qualified voters,
without distinction of race, caste, creed or community, should take
part. Thereafter, a supplementary election, confined to a special
electorate representing minorities, should be held for the exclusive
benefit of such minorities. In commending this scheme, Gokhale had
124 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

observed that the great advantage of the plan was that it provided
for composite action by all communities up to a certain point. The
scheme, at the same time, prevented injustice to minorities by giving
them a supplementary electorate of their own. But this was after
all a compromise scheme, framed in the anxiety to make the best
of the Mmto-Morley reform. It was apparently, not based on correct
and sound principles. The result was that the question of Muslim
representation went on getting complicated, and the feeling of
separateness went on increasing. Sinha, however, did not lose heart
and, all his life, continued pleading and working for communal peace
and amity.
In this connection, we may recall an interesting anecdote to
show his genuine desire to promote Hindu-Muslim unity which with
him, was almost a religious conviction. The All-India Hindu Mahasabha
session was held at Patna in April 1927 under the presidentship of
Dr. Moonje. Lala Lajpat Rai had come to Patna to attend the
conference as a delegate. He was naturally a guest of Sachchidananda
Smha. The presidential address was to have been delivered in the
afternoon, but advance copies of it had been made available to the
press. Lalaji also had got a copy of it. At the lunch table, the address
was discussed between Sinha and Lala Lajpat Rai. A paragraph
in the address relating to the Hindu-Muslim problem jarred on
Sinha’s ears. He did not like it and frankly said: “It is all right for
Dr. Moonje to seek to protect Hindu interest, but should he need¬
lessly be offensive to the Muslims?” Lalaji replied : “No, of course
not, but the offence emanated from the other side”. This he said
in support of Dr. Moonje, “Perhaps”, retorted Smha, “no noise was
ever made unless two hands clapped. One could never make a noise,
however much he waved them in the air.” That was a clincher. The
matter was discussed for a few minuted and it was ultimately
decided to advise Dr. Moonje to delete that objectionable portion.
Lalaji was sent post-haste to the conference pandal and the
objectionable portion was officially deleted. Sinha did not like it to
be known that he had anything to do with the deletion.
This little incident just illustrates how sincerely solicitous and
vigilant'Sinha was in his attempt to promote Hindu-Muslim amity
in the country.
THE MAN 125

Interest in Music

Sinha was a great lover of music. Not only did he love to hear
good classical music—and he never missed whenever an oppor¬
tunity presented itself to him—but had good understanding of the
art. Once he presided over the Allahabad University Music Con¬
ference and his presidential address proves his knowledge and
experience in the sphere. He was a great admirer of high class
Shastriya (Classical) music, and believed in the “inevitability of
the grammar of music, like the grammar of language”. However,
he deprecated an artist “who allows his attention to be absorbed
by and his soul to be smothered under the dead weight of technique
and oral gymnastics.... The antics of an acrobat may amuse us
awhile, but one cannot pretend to be edified or moved or exalted
thereby; for music to be able to possess the charm to soothe a
savage breast must be sweet and not harsh or grating”. He wanted
the musicians to realise that “music ceases to have its mam
justification, if it was not agreeable to the ear, to even the vulgar
ear and to the ear of the untrained and uninitiated”.
He was, therefore, not in agreement with those who would
banish from our music academies and colleges everything which
was not strictly classical.
 Last Days
Sinha retired from the legal profession as far back as 1928,
but continued to take active interest in public affairs till the end
of his life. It was during his period of retirement that many of his
valuable contributions were made in different spheres—literary,
educational and political. He was in his early seventies when he
wrote and published his valuable book on Iqbal, which is a monu¬
ment of his capacity for hard and sustained work. His other two
books were also published when he was in his sixties. The account
of his activities as a legislator and as Vice Chancellor, contained
in the earlier pages, should give the reader an idea of the large
volume of work he was able to put in during his period of retire¬
ment.

President Of Constituent Assembly

Sinha had the unique honour of presiding over the opening

session of the Constituent Assembly of India which began on
December 9, 1946. He was its oldest member in age. Two days
later, he had the privilege of installing as its permanent president
that great and distinguished Indian, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, who later
became the first President of the Republic of India.
In his inaugural address to the Constituent Assembly, Smha
recalled the various stages in the evolution of the idea of a
Constituent Assembly in India. He refereed to the constitutions of
some of the countries of Europe and the constitutions of the
Dominions of the British Commonwealth, and commended them
to the Assembly for its careful consideration. He pointed out that,
according to Munro—a standard authority on the subject—the
American Constitution was based on a series of agreements as
well as compromises. As such, he said, it might well be adopted
LAST DAYS 127

as a model by the Assembly. From his long experience of public

life for nearly half a century, he could say that “reasonable agree¬
ments and judicious compromises are nowhere more called for
than in framing a constitution for a country like India”.
He prayed to God that the Constitution that the Assembly
might ultimately frame “may be reared for immortality, if the work
of men may justly aspire to such a title, and it may be a structure
of administrative strength which will outlast and overcome all -
destructive forces”. Sinha also warned that any constitution “may
perish in one hour by the folly or corruption or negligence of its
keepers—the people. Republics are created by the virtue, public
spirit and intelligence of the citizens. They fall when the wise are
banished from the public councils because they dare to be honest,
and the profligate are rewarded because they flatter the people
in order to betray them”.

Signing the Constitution

The last act which marked, as it were, the culmination of his

public career was his signing, on February 14, 1950, of the Indian
constitutional document after it had been finally adopted by the
Constituent Assembly. This was only a fortnight before his death.
ON account of his weak health, Sinha was unable to got to Delhi
to sign the Constitution. President Rajendra Prasad had, therefore,
arranged to send the document itself to him at Patna, through a
special officer of the Constituent Assembly. At a brief and solemn
ceremony in his house, attended by a number of leading citizens
of Bihar, Sinha signed the Indian Constitution.
In a brief speech on this occasion, which proved to be his last
public utterance, he said:
“I think, personally, it is a great event in the history of Bihar that
the work of the Constituent Assembly should have begun at Delhi,
under the presidentship of one bom in Bihar, that the work should
have been completed under the guidance and control of one who was
bom and brought up in Bihar, and today it further falls to the lot of a
man bom in Bihar to bring the proceeding to a close. This should be
a matter of great consolation to every citizen of this State.
128 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

“Everything in the world, as we know, passes away. Who

remembers today, except P.R. Das, who is present here, and a
few other constitutional lawyers, as to what was the first to sign
the Constitution of America and who was the last man to do so?
Nothing exists for ever; everything passes and perishes; that is the
law of nature, and a good law, too. But we do remember a few
things for some time. It will be, I suppose, for all of us a good
recollection that we were associated in some shape or form either
with the beginning or with the closing of this great document.
“Nobody knows more than many of you present here, who
are either working it or shall have to work it, that nothing in this
world is perfect, least of all a document constructed by us. Indians,
who have not much knowledge and experience of this kind of
work. Still, while nothing in the world is perfect, nothing is alto¬
gether imperfect either. I hope that not only by its working on the
executive side, but also by the interpretations given to it by the
judiciary, it will become, in course of time, a perfect document—
a Constitution under which we and our descendants will live as
free citizens of the Republic of India.”
In judging Sinha’s services, his work and worth, no one should
overlook the conditions in which our earlier publicmen had to do
their duty and the enormous difficulties they had to contend with.
All honour, therefore, to them who did their work so well, undis¬
mayed by adverse conditions. By their noble and courageous
labour, they paved the path for the attainment of Swaraj. Sinha,
undoubtedly, belonged to that noble band of publicmen who worked
to the best of their lights, honestly, sincerely, steadfastly, and with
no selfish motive, for the political, social and educational advance¬
ment of the country.
Sinha passed away full of honours and years on March 6,1950,
at the age of 79, mourned by a very large circle of relations, friends
and admirers throughout the country. With him, passed away a
truly epochal figure of Bihar, nay of India. If history is made by
men, Sinha may rightly be said to have made the history of Bihar,
and also contributed in no small measure to the political and social
advancement of the country as a whole. He was indeed an
institution by himself.
 Appendix I

A Chronology

1871 — Born at Arrah (Bihar) on November 10.

1 877-1 888 — Educated at Arrah Zila School.

1888 — Passed Entrance (Matriculation) Examination from T. K.

G. Academy, Patna, and joined F.A. (I.A.) class in Patna
College (in July).

1889 — Got himself transferred to City college, Calcutta (in Sep¬

tember).

— Left for London (December, 16).

1890 — Arrived in London (February) and joined the Middle Temple

(April).

1893 — Called to the Bar (January 26). Enrolled as an Advocate

of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta (April).

1894 — Married Radhika Devi at Lahore (July 25).

1896 — Enrolled as an Advocate of the Allahabad High Court

(November).

1900 — Founded the Hindustan Review (July).

1909 — Presided at the Bihar Provincial Conference at Bhagalpur.

1910 — Elected member of the Imperial Legislative Council (Janu¬

ary).

1912 — Elected Secretary of the Reception Committee at the

twentieth session of the Indian National Congress held at
Patna (December).

1913 — Presided at the Agra and Oudh Provincial Conference, held

at Kanpur (April). Acted as a member of the Patna Uni¬
versity Committee (Nathan Committee).

1914 —Visited Europe as a member of the Congress Delegation.

1919 — Elected member of the Imperial Legislative Council (De¬

cember).

1920 —Elected member of the Imperial Legislative Council (De-

130 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

cember).

1921 — Elected first Deputy President of the Indian Legislative

Assembly (February).

—Appointed Member of the Executive Council of the Gov¬

ernor of Bihar and Orissa (May).

— Appointed to act as President of the Bihar and Orissa

Legislative Council, while continuing as Member of the
Executive Council of the Governor of Bihar and Orissa
(July).

1922 —-Relieved of his duties as President of the Bihar and Orissa

Legislative Council (November 20).

1924 — Founded Snmati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidananda

Sinha Library at Patna (February).

1926 — Relinquished charge of office of Finance Member of the

Executive Council of the Governor of Bihar and Orissa
(June).

1927 — Toured extensively in Europe and represented India at the

International Press Conference at Geneva (August).

—Addressed the East India Association in London on the

working of Dyarchy (October).

— Acted as Chairman of the Reception Committee at the

Patna session of the Bihar Provincial Hindu Conference.

1929 — Presided at the 35th session of the All India Kayastha

Conference at Delhi (March).

1930-31 — Worked as member of the Orissa Boundary Commission.

1933 — Toured extensively in Europe. Was examined at length by

the joint Parliamentary Committee on Indian Reforms on
the basis of a comprehensive memorandum submitted by
him on the White Paper.

1934 — Presided at the All-India Music Conference at Allahabad.

1935 — Delivered the Convocation Address at the Lucknow Uni¬

versity.

1936 — Appointed first non-official Vice-Chancellor of Patna Uni¬

versity in august and held that office for four successive
terms, extending over nearly nine years. Presided at the
third session of the Hindustani demy at Allahabad.

1937 — Elected member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly from

Patna University Constituency. Was conferred with the
degree of Doctor of Letters (honoris causa) by the
Allahabad University. Delivered the Convocation Address
at the Nagpur University.
APPENDIX I 131

1939 — Worked as Chairman of the banaras State Reforms Com¬

mission.

1944 — Delivered the Convocation Address at the Utkal Univer¬

sity.

1946 — Re-elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from the

Patna University constituency. Elected as one of the rep¬
resentatives of the Bihar Legislative Assembly to the
Constituent Assembly. Presided over the opening session
of the Constituent Assembly.

1947 — Received degree of Doctor of Letters (honoris causa)

from the Patna University.

1948 — Was conferred with the degree of Doctor of Letters (hon¬

oris causa) by the Banaras Hindu University.

1950 — Put his signature to the Indian Constitutional document on

Feb. 14 at Patna, where, by a special arrangement, the
document was brought from Delhi for his signature.

Passed away on March 6, 1950.

 Appendix II

Opinions of Eminent Men

Dr. S. Radhakrishnan—“There are few leaders today whose

interests are so varied and whose studies are so up-to-date. He
has the liberality of outlook which few liberals possess. The library,
which he has endowed, furnishes ample evidence of his fine taste
and discrimination.”
Sarojini Naidu—“Sachchidananda Sinha is a man of wide
interests and versatile talents, and his have been notable achieve¬
ments in many fields : in law and letters, journalism, education and
public activities of various kinds. But not less admirable and
valuable to our generation than his intellectual attainments are his
unique social qualities. I know few men with his happy gift of
attracting the cordial and enduring regard of the most diverse types
of men and women. His ironic wit and humour have been the
delight of his large circle of associates and admirers. He is a man
of deep affection and generous loyalties and has rendered to his
country and coutnrymen signal services which have earned well-
merited gratitude.”
Sir C P. Ramaswami Aiyer—“As a publicman, journalist,
statesman and those who are acquainted with him cannot but
realised how his heart beats in sympathy with all human needs and
sufferings”.
Sir Mirza Ismail—“Dr. Sinha’s varied public service as a
journalist, a legislator, a parliamentarian, an administrator and as
an educationist is one of which any Indian may well be proud.”
Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru—“Dr. Sinha has thought very deeply
over social, intellectual, educational and political problems and it

* Extracts from the Messages published in “Sachchidananda Sinha Commemoration

Volume (47).
APPENDIX II 133

is always a treat and a pleasure to discuss such issues with him.

Of him it may be truly said that he wears all the learning that he
possess lightly like a flower. He has genius for friendship and
hospitality.”
Dr. Rejendra Prasad—“Dr. Sinha was not an individual but
an institution in the social and public life of Bihar for well over
half a century. He was the representative and the mirror of his
age that is fast passing away, with all its catholicity, broad mindedness,
courtesy, singleness of purpose, devotion to duty, solid scholarship
combined with public work and much else that is of great value
in life.”
(Extract from an article written by Dr. Rejendra Prasad in
march 1950 after the death of Dr. S. Sinha)..
Dr. M. S. Aney—“Dr. Sinha had in him both the virtues of
the aristocrat and those of the democrat. That is why he was
equally liked by both the old school of public men and the new
school of public workers. In him there was a happy reconciliation
of the modes of thoughts and of the manners of life of both these
orders. And therefore he could be pleasant to the prince and the
peasant alike. It requires deep insight into human nature and also
realisation of the innate unity of man in spite of apparent differ¬
ences to the outward eye.”
(Extract from an article written after the death of Sinha in
1950).
Dr. M. R. Jayakar—“Dr. Sinha’s independence, dignity, ur¬
banity and courtesy appeared admirable in those days when many
Indian leaders verged on one extreme or another. He was trusted
by all who knew him. The feature which struck me most was that
the public revered him, although they knew that he was a merciless
critic of popular foibles and practices.”
Sir Francis mudie—“Dr. Sinha’s record of public service as
a lawyer, writer, politician administrator and finally as educationist,
over a period of fifty years, must be almost unique. He has touched
nothing that he has not adorned.”
(From the speech delivered by Sir Francis Mudie, Governor
of Bihar, on the occasion of unveiling the portrait of Dr. Sinha in
the Patna University Senate hall in 1944).
134 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

N. C. Kelkar—“I have known Dr. Sinha as a very sane,

levelheaded politician, who possesses ardent public spirit and
patriotism, and who has been a very forceful, though reasonable,
critic of Government....—And he was one of the few men to my
knowledge who escaped bitter public criticism in the conduct of
public affairs which were entrusted to him. He loves independence
but does not parade it like a glorified free-lance. His detachment
arises out of his devotion; and his friendliness is due to his wide
sympathies.”
Sir. P. S. Sivaswamy Aiyer—He has served the country in
various capacities and has done so with conspicuous success in
all of them. By his high character and attainments, his capacity
for friendship and the generosity of his disposition, of which the
magnificent gift of a public library and a town hall to the capital
of Bihar is only one of the many instances, he has acquired a high
place in the esteem and affection of his fellowmen.
Kalinath Ray—Whether as a public man or as a writer on -
current topics, the unfailing characteristics of Dr. Sinha’s utter¬
ances indeed have been their refreshing candour and outspoken¬
ness on one side and their complete freedom from malice and
bitterness on the other. He sees only too clearly that sanity,
moderation and restraint are qualities in a speech or article which
are far more telling in their ultimate effect and of far more enduring
value than the use of words that by their very vehemence are
calculated to alienate rather than persuade those to whom they
are addressed.
 Acknowledgement
The author acknowledges the valuable help he has received
from the following publications in the preparation of this biography
of Dr. Sachchidananda Sinha and for which he feels indebted to
their authors and publishers:
1. A Selection of Speeches and Writings of Dr.
Sachchidananda Sinha, Second edition, published by messrs.
Thacker Spink & Co., Calcutta;
2. Sachchidananda Sinha Commemoration Volume, 1947,
edited by P. N. Gour, M.A., B.L., and published, on behalf of the
Commemoration Volume Committee, by the United Press, Patna;
3. Reminiscences of A Long Life by Dr. Sachchidananda
Sinha (which could not be completed during his lifetime, but some
chapters of which were published in the Hindustan Review during
1946-47);
4. Some Eminent Contemporaries of Bihar By Dr.
Sachchidananda Sinha, published by the Himalaya Press, Patna;
5. The Transfer of Power by V. P. Menon, published by
Messrs Orient Longman, Calcutta, Bombay and Madras;
6. The History of the Congress by Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya,
1935, published by the Working Committee of the Indian National
Congress;
7. Indian Politics Since the Mutiny by C. Y. Chintamani,
published by Messrs Allen and Unwin, London;
8. Indian Constitution At Work by C. Y. Chintamani and
M. R. Masani, 1940, published by Messrs Allied Publishers, Bombay
and Calcutta; and
9. How India Wrought for Freedom by Annie Besant,
published by the Theosophical Publishing House, Adyar, Madras.
My special thanks are, however, due to Sri Radha Krishan
Sinha, Secretary of the Sachchidananda Smha Library, Patna, and
136 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

to the acting librarian of that Library, for kindly giving every facility
to the author to consult the old volumes of the Hindustan Review,
the reports of the proceedings of the Bihar Legislature and the
Central Legislature and of the Joint Parliamentary Committee’s
Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms, as also the old files of
some newspapers and newspaper cuttings, etc. But for their help,
it would have been almost impossible to prepare this volume.
 INDEX

A Terrorist- movement in, 38

Acton, Lord, 106 Bengalee, 34
Acts, Bills: Benn, Wedgwood, 76
Criminal Tribes Act, 92, 93 Bihar and Orissa, formation of, as
Government of India Act (1919), 55, Separate administrative unit, 41, 44
72, 73, 91 renaissance in, 39
Government of India Act (1935), 6, Bihar Herald, 35
62 Bihar Times, 36, 37, 43, 44
Hindu Marriage Validity Bill, 29 Biharee, 43, 44
Indian Councils Act (1892), 54 Bijayachand Mahatab Bahadur,
Indian Councils Act (1909), 54 Maharaja of Burdwan, 73, 82
Press Act, 96 Birkenhead, Lord, 74
Prison’s Act, 67 Bonnerjee, W.C., 20
Public Safety Bill, 72 Bradlaugh, Charles, 20
Punjab Indemnity Bill, 4, 54, 55 Brahmadeo Narayan, Rai Bahadur, 39
Reforms Act, 82 Brij Kishore Prasad, 102, 114, 118
Rowlatt Act, 72, 78 British Committee of Indian National
Sedition Meeting Bill, 55 Congress See Commission,
Advocate, 46 Committees
Africa, South, Indians in, 96 British Conservative Party, 91
Aga Khan 84 British Indian Civil Service, 5
Ambedkar, Dr. B.R., 77, 96
Amrit Bazar Patrika, 43 C
Antony, Sir See MacDonell, Sir Antony
Arrah, place of birth of Sachchidananda Carr, Sir Hubert, 89
Sinha, 9, 16, 17, 22 Chatterjee, Ramanand, 45
Arrah Bar, 11 Chintamani, C.Y., fn, 44, 77fn
Arrah Zila School, 14 Civil Disobedience, 44, 73
Attlee C. R., 87, 90 Cocks, Mr. 87, 96
Commissions, Committees:
B British Committee of Indian
National Congress, 20
Bantawala, Sir Hormusji, 66-67 Joint Parliamentary -Committee on
Banerjea, Surendranath, 2, 20, 34 Indian Reforms, 2, 5, 83, 84, 89-91
Banerjee, Pramada Charan, 41 Muddiman Committee, 4, 64, 65, 73
Bankipore, 23 Patna University Committee, 101
Basu, Bfjupendranath, 52, 96 Police Commission, 95
Bengal: Public Safety Bills, 72
partition of, 38 Public Service Commission, 95
138 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

Punjab Enquiry Commission, 55 98, 99

Reforms Enquiry Committee, 4, 73 Freedom movement, 21
See also Muddiman Committee Froom, Sir Arthur, 73
Royal Commission, 73-74
Simon Commission, 6, 74, 89 G
Statutory Commission, 74
Gandhi, Mahatma, 7, 66, 73, 75, 77,
Communal Award, 76, 77
83, 91
Congress See Indian National Congress,
Garrison, William Lloyd, 48
Conservative Party, 84
Gladstone, 79
“Constitutional Nationalist”,
Gokhale, Gopal Krishna, 52, 53, 95,
Constitutional Nationalist Party, 2
123
Constitutional Reforms, Joint Parlia¬
Gokul Prasad, 46
mentary Committee on 2, 6, 83-
Gour, Sir Hari Singh, 2, 56
84 Memorandum by Sachchidananda
Government of India Act See
Sinha, 84-86
Cotton, Sir Henry, 95 Acts, Bills.
Government of India Act See.
Crew, Lord, 96
Acts, Bills
Criminal Tribes Act See Acts, Bills
Govind Prasad, 30, 45
Croft, Sir Alfred, 16
Curzon, Lord, 38, 53
H
D
Hamilton, Sir George, 53
Hammond, E.L.L., 118
Das, Madhusudan, 54, 110
Hardinge, Lord, 110-111
Das, P R. 44, 128
Hewett, Sir John 32
De. B.N., 24
Hindu Marriage Validity Bill See.
Delhi Darbar (1903), 46; (1911), 34,
Acts, Bills.
1 10
Hindu-Muslim Unity, 123, 124
Digby, 20
Hindustan Review, 1, 26fn, 30, 45-
Duke, Sir William. 110, 111, 112
49, 71fn, 123
Dumaron, 24, 25
Dumaron Raj, 24 Hindustani, as medium of instruction
Maharaja of, 9, 10 in primary schools, 104, 105
Dwarka Nath, Rai Bahadur, 102 Hoare, Sir Samuel, 72, 76, 84
Dyarchy, System of, 5, 63, 65, 74, Hubert, Sir See. Carr, Sir Hubert.
80-83, 87
“Dyarchy in Theory and Practice”, 81 I

E Iman, Sir Ali, 17, 20, 32, 39, 40, 41,

42, 110
East India Association, London, 81 Imam, Hasan, 2, 17, 32, 39, 44
Eden, Ashley, 24 Indian Civil Service, 24, 71
Education, 99; English Language, 11 Indian Councils Act See.
higher, 108-109; linguistic contro¬ Acts, Bills.
versy, 11 Indian Council Act See.
Secondary, 104, 105; Acts, Bills.
students, advice to, 105-107 Indian Educational Service, 99
Indian Library movement, 50
F Indian Nation, 45
Indian National Congress, 1, 2, 3, 17,
Fakhruddin, Sir Mohammad, 39, 65,
INDEX 139

20, 31, 94, 103, 128, 129; Lakkar Shah, 10

Bihar Provincial Congress Commit¬ Lansdowne, Lord, 53
tee, 2; Leader, 4, 43, 44, 1 14
British Committee of, 20; Le Mesurier, Sir Havilland, 61
Sessions of : Ahmedabad, 95; Liberal Party, 84
Allahabad, 100; Banaras, 95; Lothian committee See Commissions,
Bombay, 95; Calcutta, 94 Committees
Karachi, 96; Lahore, 94’ Lytton, lord, 20, 85
Lucknow 94;
Indian People 44, 45 M
Indian Politics Since the Mutiny, 7
Indians in South Africa, 96 Macaulay, 79
Iqbal, poet, 114 Mac Donald, Ramsay, 75, 76, 91
Irwin, Lord, 74, 75, 76, 90 Mac Donell, Sir Antony, 38, 45
Iyer, Sir, P.S. Sivaswamy, 48, 65, 73, Mackenzie, Sir Alexander, 38
75 Macpherson, Justice, 99
Mahesh Narayan, 1, 35, 36, 37, 38,
J 42', 44
Mahindra, K.C; 46
Jackson, V.H. 105 Majumdar Ambika Charan, 94
Jallianwala Bagh massacre, 54, 72 Malaviya, Pandit Madan Mohan, 4,
Jardine, Sir John, 95 17, 22, 30, 31, 77
Jennings, J.G. 98 Manchester Guardian, 43
Jha, Dr. Amamath, 114 Maude, Sir Walter, 59
Jinnah, M.A. 65, 73, 96 Me Pherson, Sir Hugh, 122
“Jogendra Shukla’s Gang, 92 Menon, V. P., 75fn
Joint Parliamentary Committee on Minto, Lord, 123
Indian Reforms See. Commissions, Moderate Constitutionalists, 2
Committees. See also Liberal Party
Jones, Morgan, 90 Modern Review, 45
Joshi, Moropant, 20 Mohammad Ali, 39
Jwala Prasad, Sir, 70 mohammad Noor, Khwaja, 100
Montagu, 57, 58
K Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, 44,
54, 64, 72, 73, 80, 81
Kanhaiya Lai, Rai Bahadur, 26 Montagu-Chelmsford Report, 2, 89
Kanika, Raja of, 117 Moonjee Dr. 124
Kashmir : Playground of Asia, 114 Morley^Minto Reforms, 49, 123
Kayastha Conference, Delhi Muddiman, Sir Alexander, 64, 73
(1929), 27-28 Muddiman Committee See Commissions,
Kayastha Samachar, 45 Committees
Keith, Prof, 90 Mudholkar, R. N., 2, 20
Khuda Baksh Khan, Khan Bahadur, 50 Mudie, Sir Francis, 100
Khuda Baksh Oriental Library, Mukherjee, Dr. Radha Kumud, 112
Patna, 50 Muller, Max, 1, 11
Munro, 106
L
N
Labour Party, 84
Lajpat Rai, Lala, 96, 97, 124 Naidu, Sarojini, 72, 117
140 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

Nair, Sir Sankaran, 102 Reading, Lord, 74

Nand Kishore Lai, 35 Reforms Act (1919) See Acts, Bills
Naoroji, Dada bhai, 21, 5 Reforms Enquiry Committee See Com¬
Narasimha Sharma, Rao Bahadur, missions, Committees
See Sharma, Rao Bahadur Narasimha Round Table Conferences, 76, 78, 79
Nathan, Sir Robert, 98, 101 Rowlatt Act See Acts, Bills
“National Demand”, 74 Roy, K. C., 81
National Liberal Federation, 2 Royal Commission See Commissions,
Nehru, Pandit Motilal, 30, 31, 73, 74 Committees
New Hindustan Review, 46
Nihal Singh, Sant, 47 S
Non-Cooperation movement, 58, 66,
73, 119 Sachchidananda Sinha Library, 49, 50
Northbrook Club, London, 19, 20 Sahay, Babu Harbans, 11
Northbrook, Lord, 20 Sahay, Kandhij, 17
North, Eardley, 20 Sahay, Rai Bahadur Krishna, 19, 35,
Null, Sir Joseph, 87 56, 59
Saiyyidain, K. G., 103
P Samachar, 45, 46
Paranjpye, R. P., 66, 73 Samanta, M. N., 96
Patel, Sardar, 72 Sankaran Nair, Sir, See Nair, Sir
Patel, V.J., 29 Sankaran
Patna University Committee Sapru, Sir Tej Bahadur, 2, 30, 45, 55,
See Commissions, Committees 65, 78, 84
Pioneer, 38 Sarbandhikari, Sir Deva Prasad, 56
Police Commission See Commissions, Sastri, V.S. Srinivasa, 2
Committees Searchlight, 44
Police Reform, sinha’s resolution, Seditious meetings Bill See Acts, Bills
on, 94, 95 Sen, Guru Prasad, 35
Poona Pact, 77 Sen, P. K„ 44
Pope, J.V.S., 16 Sergeant, Sir John, 50
Press Act See Acts, Bills Shafi, Mulavi, 118
Prison’s Act See Acts, Bills Shafi, Sir Mohammad, 73
Public Safety Bill See Acts, Bills Shah, K. T., 103
Public Service Commission See Com¬ Sharfuddin, Mr.., 39
missions, Committees Sharma, Rao Bahadumarasimha, 96
Punjab Enquiry Commission See Com¬ Shyamalanand, 17
missions, Committees Simon Commission See Commissions,
Punjab Indemnity Bill See Acts, Bills. Committees
Simon, Sir John, 75
R Singh, Baidyanath Narain, 102
Singh, Maharaja Keshav Prasad, 69
Radhika Sinha Institute, 26, 49 Singh, Rai Bahadur Tej Narayan, 21
Raghunandan Prasad, 19 Singh Ravaneshwer Prasad, Maharaja
Rajagopalachari, C. 77 of Gidhaur, 52
Rajah, M.C., 77 Singh, Sir Ganesh Dutt, 65
Rajendra Prasad, Dr. 3, 44, 67, 77, Singh, Sir Radha Prasad, 24
100, 102, 103, 118, 126, 127 Singh, Sir Rameshwer Maharajadhiraj
Ramacharita Manas, 13 of Darbhanga, 52, 90
Ramayana, 12 Sinha, Ajit Prasad, 54
INDEX 141

Sinha, Anugrah Narain, 3 Court, 23

Sinha, Bakshi Ramghulam, 9-10 established Sachchidananda Sinha Li¬
Sinha Bakshi Ramyad, father of brary, 49, 50
Sachchidananda Sinha, 9, 10 father of, 9, 10
Sinha, Bakshi Shiva Prasad, Grandfather grand father of, 9
of Sachchidananda Sinha, 9 his insatiable thirst for Knowledge, 78,
Sinha, Lord S. P., 39, 56, 58, 59, 63, 114
119 his sense of humour, 120-121
Sinha, Nirsu Narayan, 59 interest in journalism, 143-150
Sinha, Radhika, wife of Sachchidananda interest in music, 125
Sinha, 26, 49 invited to attend Third Round Table
Sinha, Rai Bahadur Purnendu Conference, 79
Narain, 102 invited to represent India at the Inter¬
Sinha, Raja Raj Rajeswari Prasad, 17 national Press Conference,
Sinha, Sachchidananda birth, 9, 11, Geneva, 49
138; death, 1287; marriage of, 26
acted as president of member of British Committee of Indian
Bihar and Orissa Legislative Coun¬ National Congress, 20; member
cil, 59 Bihar Educational Reorganisation
acting Secretary of Khuda Baksh Committee, 103; part played in the
oriental Library, 50 constitution of the separate prov¬
advocate of Allahabad High Court, 30, ince of Orissa, 112
31 President of Kayastha Conference, 26-
and the Congress, 2; apostle 27
of Hindu-Muslim unity, 123-124 President of the opening Session of the
appointed Secretary of the Kayastha Constituent Assembly, 126-127
Pathshala, 30 President of Reception Committee of
appointed Vice-Chancellor of Patna Fourth All-India Library Conference,
University, 90-100 Patna, 50
author of Banaras state Constitutional presides over the U P. Provincial Con¬
Reforms Report, 116; ference 31-32
Called to the Bar, 21; qualities of, 117-123
Comments on Communal Award, 76, resumed practice at bar, 67
77 returns to India, 21, 70
Connected with the administration of sails for England, 19, 70
the Imperial Library, Calcutta, 50; started planning to go abroad, 17-18
Criticises punjab Indemnity Bill in submits memorandum to Joint Indian
the Council, 54-55; Parliamentary Committee on Indian
education of, 13-15, 18 Constitutional Reforms, 84-86, 89
elected Deputy President of Central succeeds in introducing improvements
Legislative Assembly, 55-57 elected in jail administration, 66-68
member of Imperial Legislative Suggests a plan to Sir Imam Ali for
Council, 51, 52; securing an Executive Council for
elected member of the Executive coun¬ Bihar and Orissa, 40-41
cil of the Governor of Bihar, 56; views on medium of instruction, 103
elected president of Bihar Coun¬ views on Secondary education, 104-
cils, 56 105
elected to Bihar and Orissa Legislative was a prominent member of North
Council, 70 brook India Club, 20
enrolled advocate of Calcutta High wife of, 26, 49
142 SACHCHIDANANDA SINHA

Sinha, Sri Krishna, 118 Tagore. Maharaja Pradyotkumar, 52

Skrine, 22 Templewood, Viscount, 76
Smith, Sir Henry Moncrieff, 73 Terrorist Movement in Bengal, 38
Smuts, General, 6
Snell, Lord, 90 V
Some Eminent Bihari Contempo¬
raries, 35, 36, 39, 1 14 Verma, Ganga Prasad, 46
Statesman, 1 1 1 Vincent, Sir William, 56
Statutory Commission See Commis¬
sions, Committees W
Swaraj, 2; Swarajists, 70
Syed Abdul Aziz, 99 Wedderbum, Sir William, 96
Syed Mohammad Bahadur, Nawab, 96 Wheeler Sir Henry, 68
Syed Sultan Ahmed, Sir, 99 “White Paper on India Reforms”, 72,
78, 80, 83, 84, 86, R7,'88„ 90, 91
T White, Sir Frederick, 55, 61
Wordsworth, 76
T.K. Ghosh Academy, 16 Yule, 20
S ACHCHIDANANDA SINHA was one of the stalwarts
of the freedom movement and had become a legendary
figure in his own life time. A man of great learning and
erudation he distinguished himself as a jurist,social
reformer, educationist, writer, journalist, adminstrator,
and a statesman.

The book deals with the life of a man who pursued his
objectives with a tenacity unique among the Country’s
leading figure and has rightly won for himself an
honoured place among the builders of modem India.

i.i i rr it jx jx m
PUBLICATIONS DIVISION
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

ISBN: 81-230-1118-0 Price: Rs. 70.00