Gandhi has been regarded for twenty years by the Government of India as one of its right-hand men. I know what I am talking about--I used to be an officer in the Indian police. It was always admitted in the most cynical way that Gandhi made it easier for the British to rule India, because his influence was always against taking any action that would make any difference. The reason why Gandhi when in prison is always treated with such lenience,deg and small concessions sometimes made when he has prolonged one of his fasts to a dangerous extent, is that the British officials are in terror that he may die and be replaced by someone who believes less in 'soul force' and more in bombs. Gandhi is of course personally quite honest and unaware of the way in which he is made use of, and his personal integrity makes him all the more useful. I won't undertake to say that his methods will not succeed in the long run. One can at any rate say that by preventing violence and therefore preventing relations being embittered beyond a certain point, he has made it more likely that the problem of India will ultimately be settled in a peaceful way. But it is hard to believe that the British will ever be got out of India by those means, and certainly the British on the spot don't think so. As to the conquest of England, Gandhi would certainly advise us to let the Germans rule here rather than fight against them--in fact he did advocate just that. And if Hitler conquered England he would, I imagine, try to bring into being a nationwide pacifist movement, which would prevent serious resistance and therefore make it easier for him to rule.
Thank you for writing.
Yours sincerely
George Orwell
[XII, 785, pp. 465-7; typewritten]
1.The People's Convention was organised in January 1941 by the Communists, ostensibly to fight for public rights, higher wages, better air-raid precautions, and friendship with the USSR. Some historians maintain that its true purpose was to agitate against the war effort. In July 1941, after the Soviet Union's entry into the war, it immediately called for a second front. By 1942 its active work had ceased.
2.D. N. Pritt (1887-1972) was a Labour MP, 1935-40, then, on expulsion from the party for policy disagreements, Independent Socialist MP until 1950. Well known as a barrister, he was a fervent supporter of leftwing causes and the Soviet Union.
To Dorothy Plowman*
20 June 1941
111 Langford Court
Abbey Road NW 8
Dear Dorothy,
I can't say much about Max's death. You know how it is, the seeming uselessness of trying to offer any consolation when somebody is dead. My chief sorrow is that he should have died while this beastly war is still going on. I had not seen him for nearly two years, I deeply disagreed with him over the issue of pacifism, but though I am sorry about that you will perhaps understand when I say that I feel that at bottom it didn't matter. I always felt that with Max the most fundamental disagreement didn't alter one's personal relationship in any way, not only because he was incapable of any pettiness but also because one never seems able to feel any resentment against an opinion which is sincerely held. I felt that though Max and I held different opinions on nearly all specific subjects, there was a sense in which I could agree with his vision of life. I was very fond of him, and he was always very good to me. If I remember rightly, he was the first English editor to print any writing of mine, twelve years ago or more.1
There is still the PS300 which I borrowed through you from my anonymous benefactor.2 I hope this doesn't embarrass you personally in any way. I can't possibly repay it at this moment, though I hope you understand that I haven't abandoned the intention of doing so. It is hard to make much more than a living nowadays. One can't write books with this nightmare going on, and though I can get plenty of journalistic and broadcasting work, it is rather a hand-to-mouth existence. We have been in London almost from the outbreak of the war. We have kept on our cottage, but we let it furnished and only manage to go down there very occasionally. For more than a year Eileen was working in the Censorship Department, but I have induced her to drop it for a while, as it was upsetting her health. She is going to have a good rest and then perhaps get some less futile and exasperating work to do. I can't join the army because I am medically graded as class D, but I am in the Home Guard (a sergeant!) I haven't heard from Richard Rees* for some time, but last time I heard from him he was a gunner on a coal boat.
Eileen sends her best love. Please remember me also to Piers3 and everyone. I gather from your card that Piers is now in England. I hope you succeed in keeping him out of danger. This is a rotten time to be alive, but I think anyone of Piers's age has a chance of seeing something better.
Yours
Eric Blair
[XII, 817, pp. 514-5; typewritten]
1.G. K.'s Weekly published his first article in English, 'A Farthing Newspaper', 29 December 1928 (X, 80, pp.119-21). Max Plowman did much to further Orwell's writing in The Adelphi.
2.L. H. Myers.*
3.The Plowmans' son.
The BBC and the War
1941 - 1943
Orwell worked incredibly hard at the BBC. He wrote 105 English-language newsletters for India, and for occupied Malaya and Indonesia. He also wrote the originals for 115 newsletters for translation into Indian languages. We know some were heard in Japanese-occupied territories. A nun in Malaya, Sister Margaret, described to a WRAC officer, Barbara Rigby, how she and the Sisters risked their lives to listen in and walked many miles to give others the news. The nuns, she said, had been cheered by Orwell: 'we used to bless that good man'. Orwell's idea of propaganda was to broadcast educational and cultural programmes. Long before the Open University he organised courses based on Calcutta and Bombay University syllabuses on literature, science, medicine, agriculture and psychology, engaging speakers of outstanding distinction as varied as T.S. Eliot* and Joseph Needham. He arranged programmes on The Koran and Das Kapital, on music and poetry. There was a curious programme in which five distinguished writers, including E.M. Forster completed, independently, a story that Orwell had begun. And he made dramatic adaptations.
How effective was all this? Orwell thought he had wasted his time and listener research was not encouraging. Two documents might suggest otherwise. On 20 November 1945, Balraj Sahni* wrote to Orwell from Bombay sympathising on Eileen's death. Balraj and his wife, Damyanti, had worked with Orwell in a series on the mechanics of presenting drama, Let's Act It Ourselves. Balraj Sahni wrote, 'We saw little of you two but you endeared yourselves to us greatly, through your work and your sincerity.' They were working in the Indian People's Theatre, 'work which doesn't bring us money but a lot of happiness'. They had had nearly fifty new plays written which they had performed to audiences totalling more than a million people. Damyanti died very young in 1947. Balraj became a very famous film actor. Orwell also presented a series of Indian plays in abbreviated format such as the Sanscrit Mrocchakatika ('The Little Clay Cart'). When this was presented in London forty years later it was described as 'a first'.
Secondly, on 7 August 1943, the Director of the Indian Services, Rushbrook-Williams* wrote this in his confidential annual report on Orwell (reproduced by kind permission of the BBC Written Archives Centre): 'He has a great facility in writing and a literary flair which makes his work distinguished... He supports uncomplainingly a considerable burden of poor health. This never affects his work, but occasionally strains his nerves. I have the highest opinion of his moral, as well as of his intellectual capacity. He is transparently honest, incapable of subterfuge, and, in early days, would have either been canonised - or burnt at the stake! Either fate he would have sustained with stoical courage. An unusual colleague - but a mind, and a spirit, of real and distinguished worth.' His achievement was no less than to provide an inspiration for the Third Programme (now Radio 3) (see 19.9.46, n.3).
In the midst of this, Orwell's mother, Ida, died on 19 March 1943 of bronchitis complicated by emphysema. Orwell was at her bedside, but, as Gordon Bowker points out, it failed to stop her son smoking his pungent roll-up cigaret
tes (p. 297).
From Orwell's letter to Mrs Laura Buddicom, 27 June 1920
This is an abstract from the sole surviving copy of a memorandum establishing the BBC Eastern Services Committee. It was written by R.A. Rendall, Director of the Empire Service at the time, and is the copy sent to R.W. Brock of the India Section of the Ministry of Information (situated in the University of London's Senate House, which would be the model for the Ministry of Truth in Nineteen Eighty-Four).
16 October 1941
[no address: BBC internal memo]
I think you are aware that in our endeavour to integrate and expand the Eastern Services of the B.B.C., we have decided to constitute an Eastern Services Committee, which will hold regular fortnightly sessions. On this Committee, which will be an internal organism of the Corporation, the India Office and the Ministry of Information will be represented. . . . The Committee will be presided over by Professor Rushbrook Williams,* our recently appointed Eastern Services Director. . . .
It is intended to hold the first meeting of the Committee at 2.30 p.m. in Room 101 at 55 Portland Place on Wednesday, October 22nd.
[XIII, 870, pp. 57-8]
An agenda was enclosed. Orwell was not invited to the first meeting (though his superior, Zulfaqar Ali Bokhari* attended). 55 Portland Place was a block of flats close to Broadcasting House which the Indian Section used until it moved to 200 Oxford Street. When it was returned to the BBC it was completely refashioned and the surviving plans do not show the layout of rooms at the time the BBC used them, so Room 101 cannot be identified. It was probably on the ground floor. It was certainly not in Broadcasting House itself. Orwell is known to have attended at least twelve meetings and on 14 October 1942 was listed as convenor of a sub-committee to explore the possibilities of organising drama and poetry competitions in India. By this time the BBC had moved to 200 Oxford Street and the meeting was held in Room 314.
In Nineteen Eighty-Four O'Brien tells Orwell that the thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world (p. 296). The understandable impression is that this is something like drowning, death by fire, or impalement, but Orwell is more subtle: for many, and for him, the worst thing in the world is that which is the bureaucrat's life-blood: attendance at meetings.
To E. Rowan Davies*
16 May 1942
Information Re Burma Campaign
The questions which I think could usefully be asked of the Burma government are: --
i. What number of Burmese voluntarily evacuated themselves along with British troops etc. leaving India, and what proportion of these were officials.
ii. Attitude of Burmese officials when breakdown appeared imminent. Whether there was a marked difference in loyalty between Burmese and Indian officials. To what extent Burmese officials are known to be carrying on under the Japanese occupation.
iii. Behaviour under fire of the Burma regiments and military police. Whether any actual Burmese (not Kachins etc.) were fighting for the British.
iv. What difference appeared between political attitude of the Burmese proper and the Karens, Shans, Chins, Kachins.1
v. What number of the Eurasian community, especially in Rangoon, Moulmein, Mandalay evacuated with the British and how many stayed behind under the Japanese occupation. Whether any who remained behind are known to have changed their allegiance.
vi. Behaviour of the Burmese population under bombing raids. Whether these produced resentment against the Japanese, admiration for Japanese air superiority, or mere panic.
vii. The native Christians, especially Karens.2 Whether interpenetrated to any extent by nationalist movement.
viii. Number of shortwave sets known to have been in Burmese, Indian and Eurasian possession before the invasion.
ix. Detailed information about the Burmese nationalist and leftwing political parties. The main points are:--
a. Numbers and local and social composition of the Thakin party.3
b. Extent to which Buddhist priests predominate.
c. What affiliations exist between the Burmese nationalist parties and the Congress and other Indian parties.
d. Burmese Communists, if any, and what affiliations.
e. Extent of Burmese trade union movement and whether it has affiliations with trade unions in India or Europe.
x. Estimated number of Burmese actually fighting on side of Japanese. Whether people of good standing or mainly dacoits etc. Whether they are reported to have fought courageously.
xi. Extent of Japanese infiltration before the invasion. Whether many Japanese are known to speak local languages,4 especially Burmese, and to what extent they are likely to be dependent on Burmans for monitoring and interpretation generally.
Eric Blair
[XIII, 1174, pp. 327-8; typewritten]
1.In addition to Burmese people, the Burmese nation is composed of many ethnic groups, of which these four are among the most important. There were then more than a million Shans, 1.25 million Karens, half a million Chins, and 200,000 Kachens in a total population of approximately 17 million, many of them being hill peoples. By 1984 the population had doubled.
2.Most Burmese are Buddhist, as are the Karens, but some 175,000 Karens are Christian.
3.The Thakin movement developed among radicals in the Young Men's Buddhist Association schools (later the National Schools), who resented British rule. Two university students, Aung San and U Nu, who joined the movement after the student strike in 1936, were instrumental in leading Burma to independence. Aung San was among a number of Burmese politicians murdered in July 1947 at the instigation of a former prime minister, U Saw. When Burma became an independent republic, on 4 January 1948, U Nu became prime minister. Aung San's daughter, Suu Kyi, born shortly before his murder, has led a long fight against the military government of Burma (Myanmar). Her National League for Democracy won a landslide victory in 1990 but was not allowed to govern. She was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace.
4.Orwell, when serving in the Indian Imperial Police in Burma, passed the language examinations in Burmese and in Shaw-Karen.
On 27 June 1942, Picture Post published 'the first article in an important new series', 'Britain's Silent Revolution' by J. B. Priestley. The series asked 'What is happening in Britain? What kind of a country is being shaped by the war?' At the head of Priestley's article was this statement in bold type: 'We are threatened with decay--but the war has saved us. Some of the old are uprooted; some of the new blessings are steadily growing. Here is our great chance to fashion a really healthy society.' On 4 July, Vernon Bartlett, MP, wrote on 'The Revolt Against Party Politics' and on 11 July, a column was run, 'What They Say About Bartlett and Priestley'. Two letters were printed in response to Priestley's article, one from the Bishop of Bradford and this from Orwell.
To Picture Post
11 July 1942
I am in agreement with Mr. Priestley as to the general direction in which our society is moving, but do not share his apparent belief that things will inevitably happen fast enough to prevent the old gang getting their claws into us again. Two years ago I would have echoed his optimistic utterances more confidently than I would now. At that time an appalling disaster had brought this country to what looked like the first stage of revolution, and one could be excused for believing that class privilege and economic inequality would quite rapidly disappear under the pressure of danger. Obviously this has failed to happen. But I do agree with Mr. Priestley that the sort of society we knew before 1939 is not likely to return. I don't share the belief which some people still seem to hold, that 'this is a capitalist war,' and that if we win it we shall simply see the British ruling class in power again. What I should like to hear about in Mr. Priestley's next article is not 'What?' but 'How?'--just how we are to set about getting the truly democratic society we want.
George Orwell, Abbey Road, NW 8.
[XIII, 1269, p. 391; typewritten]
To Alex Comfort*
15 July 1942
10a Mortimer Crescent
/>
London NW 6
Dear Mr Comfort,
The Partisan Review sent me a copy of the letter you had written them, along with some others. I believe they are going to print all the letters, or extracts from them, and my reply. But there was one point I didn't care to answer in print. You queried my reference to 'antisemitism' (by the way I didn't say antisemitism but Jew-baiting, a very different thing) in the Adelphi. Of course I was thinking of Max Plowman*, who hated Jews, and though he was aware of this tendency in himself and struggled against it, sometimes let it influence his editorship. I had two particular instances in mind. The first was when Macmurray's book The Clue to History was published in 1938. This was a rather unbalanced book and extremely pro-Jew in tendency. Max was infuriated by this and had the book reviewed by five separate people, including himself and myself, in one issue of the Adelphi. His own review (you could look it up--round about December 1938) was definitely provocative in tone. Later on he got the Adelphi involved in a controversy with some Jew whose name I don't remember, Cohen I think, about the alleged warmongering activities of the Jews. Having got the Jew hopping mad and said his own say in a very snooty manner, Max suddenly declared the controversy closed, not allowing the Jew to reply. This would be some time in 1939. Since the war Murry has at least once referred with apparent approval to Hitler's 'elimination' of the Jews.