COMRADE SAK

A BOOK REVIEW

By Jehangir S. Pocha

Perhaps Shapurji Saklatvala (1874-1936) suffers from the ignominy of being third in a winner obsessed society. As the third Indian after Dadabhai Nawroji and Mancherjee Browanagree (all of whom were from the Parsi Zoroastrian community) to be elected to the British House of Commons, this fascinating and enigmatic man who rattled Westminster with his withering criticisms of the British colonial-capitalistic system deserves more attention than history is paying him.

Aristocrat, leftist, pious Zarathusti, Christian convert, godless communist, anglophile, Indian nationalist - Saklatvala went by several, often contradictory, labels. Marc Wadsworths book "Comrade Sak" chronicles the political life of a man born into wealth and privilege (his father Dorabji had married Jamshedji Tata's sister, Jerbai) and who died a staunch (and as we will see, feared) communist.

As a young manager at Tatas, Shapur, as he referred to himself in true egalitarian manner, was a favourite of his uncle's and could have been a contender to head Tatas (an honour that eventually went to his uncle Nawroji Saklatvala who preceded JRD Tata as chairman of Tata Sons). But like many passionate young men of his generation Shapur was instinctively drawn more to social and political issues than business ones. When rivalries within Tatas after Jamshedji Tatas death in 1904 (a period which Wadsworth covers briefly but surprising well) found him being posted (read banished) to England, he began an association with the Liberal party. While in England, he also met and married Sally Marsh, a working class Englishwoman and Wadsworth states it was through the life of her family that Shapur saw the grim reality of "the real, working England" for the first time.

Shapur's view of the exploitative nature of British capitalism, initially formed in India, grew harder in this time and he found himself being drawn to the Communist party which he later joined.

"Comrade Sak", which races through Shapur's early years as though they were of perfunctory importance, really begins only at this point. Time-flight, which encapsulates the first 30 odd years of Shapur's life into some 10 pages, slows, and Wadsworth begins his detailed account of Shapur's political activities in the UK as he traces Shapur's rise, rule and fading as one of Britain's most significant Communist spokespersons.

Aptly subtitled "A Political Biography", "Comrade Sak" is an honest, well researched and competent, if somewhat dispassionate, account of an apparently passionate, articulate and complex man, that traces his political life with great alacrity as it comprehensively journals his contributions to leftist cause. High on accuracy while low on humor "Comrade Sak" illustrates how this émigré Parsi Indian aristocrat metamorphosed into a Communist spokesperson of international importance, got elected to British parliament from the famously "red" district of Battersea North and used his seat on the backbenches to speak bravely for the two causes most dear to his heart - Indian nationalism and workers rights.

In the two years Sak spent in parliament, 1924 and 1926, he (through his League Against Imperialism) almost single-handedly forced the issues of Asian and African independence and workers rights onto the British political agenda (much to the consternation of the Tatas, partly dependent as they were on British largesse for their continued growth). As one of the most articulate, compelling and passionate spokespersons for these causes, Shapur established close relationships with John Archer the pan-Africanist, Motilal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi. Though initially warm, relations with the Mahatma became stained as Shapur accused him of ignoring of labour issues in India to appease his industrial bankrollers (e.g. Birla, Bajaj). "Almost all Indian politicians, including Mr. Gandhi, do not care for Indian (industrial) workers" he wrote almost prophetically in 1930. Yet he remained a figure of such influence and stature at home that after his one barnstorming visit in 1927 where he advocated his brand of militant trade unionism to hugely receptive audiences, he was banned from further entry into India.

Perhaps it was this focus on overseas issues led to voters rejecting him in subsequent elections, and this led to his gradual decline within the party. Outside parliament Shapur continued to contest (and loose) elections with great fervour and led the Communists party's verbal assault on the Tory-Liberal-Labour establishment with such ferocity ("I am out for a revolution and am quite prepared to be shot down") that he was banned from entry into a number of countries, including the United States and his own native India. Such was his working commitment to the cause of the labour movement that most of his colleagues and family are united in their assessment that he died pre-maturely essentially due to strain and overwork.

Yet, as Wadsworth notes, Shapur was never appointed to any national position within the Communist Party of Great Britain. Perhaps it was race. Wadsworth suggests that it was because his comrades assessed him to be a remarkable orator with a keen intellect and a wry, almost cynical sense of humor (when asked what he thought of the Indian Civil Service, he replied "It is neither Indian, nor civil…") but with a limited theoretical understanding of the communist ideology. To him he was their lightening rod more than their grand Oracle.

This is probably true as Shapur's communism stemmed more from his humanity than his economic beliefs. And this is why Wadsworth's exclusive focus on Shapur's political life seems self-defeating and myopic, denying us any meaningful insight into the genesis of his thinking. (Though in Chapter 1 Wadsworth does explain the circumstances which he suspects caused the Saklatvala's to feel financially cheated by the Tata's and which in part could explain Shapur's determination to get workers their just dues from capitalists). After reading the book one feels like one knows Saklatvala and his politics, not that one understands them.

The fact that "Comrade Sak" is written almost entirely in third person and lacks any dramatization whatsoever, is also disappointing. Sometimes we wonder why we are loaded with insignificant facts (though Wadsworth ignores some important dimensions to Shapur's life he does provide us with the names of the three dasturji's who performed the Saklatvala children's navjote!) and introduced to such a plethora of insignificant characters. Who cares about Arthur Field "an influential Battersea socialist" no less, when it would have been so much more fun and illustrative if, for example, Wadsworth had juxtaposed Shapur with a famous contemporary, the arch-imperialist Winston Churchill whose views were so diametrically opposed to Shapur's.

Wadsworth's own leftist views come through loud and clear, and in parts "Comrade Sak" is a rather drab read except for those interested in the minutiae of the British Communist politics of the 1920's and 1930's, for whom the book seems to have been written anyway.

Why then do I recommend that any of you, gentle readers, read the book?

For one, the real wealth of the book lies in the 50 page Appendix where Shapur's significant speech's, articles and letters are re-produced. Reading the pristine prose, precise thinking, unfailing passion and genuine humanity in these lines affirms Shapur's greatness to the reader. His words remind us that "the goals of ending inequality and making possible human liberation are too important to be consigned to historical memory."

Secondly, what makes the life of Shapur particularly relevant to us all was that despite being a "Black MP" in a white country, he maintained his deep sense of family, religion, ethnicity and remained committed to his roots even as these posed painful (finally insurmountable) impedants to his goals. Though Tatas strived to distance themselves from him, his Indian-ness made him the brunt of overt racism and his religiosity made him suspect to fellow communists, Shapur was a man who is greater part managed to straddle many diverse (even contradictory) worlds with dignity, grace and wisdom. A complex man not easily understood, Shapur Saklatvala deserves greater understanding and recognition amongst the Zoroastrian community today for he was a man who lived by his religion and who exemplified the values and principles of our faith. A refined and sensitive human being with many qualities of head and heart, he surrendered wealth and power to pursue his desire to help establish what was in his eyes, a fairer, more just system of governance in the world with passion and integrity.

He is worthy of our remembrance.

(Readers seeking to learn more about Shapurji Saklatvala may be want to read "The Fifth Commandment" a chronicle of his life by daughter Sehri Saklatvala.)