|
Facts and Opinions Volume I - Oct. 16, 1909 - Number 17 Gokhale's Apologia
We do not think we need waste much space on the arguments of the recent speech in which Mr. Gokhale has attempted to reconcile the contradictory utterances in which his speeches have lately abounded. Vibhishan's utterances are of little importance nowadays to anyone except the Government and Anglo-India, who are naturally disposed to make the most of his defection from the cause of the people. Justice Chandavarkar, who long ago gave up the cause of his country for a judgeship and whose present political opinions can be estimated from his remark in the Swaraj case, grandiloquently condemned the "vilification" to which Mr. Gokhale has been exposed, and declared that condemnation from such quarters was the greatest compliment a man like his protégé could have. Of course the worthy judge could not foresee that the Englishman would hail the first Servant of India as a brand plucked from the burning and compliment him on being the only righteous and right-thinking man among Indian politicians, — which is, after all, a little hard on Sir Pherozshah Mehta and Mr. Harkissen Lal. But in the same report that enshrines Mr. Chandavarkar's semi-official rhetoric, we have it that the Commissioner of Police and his deputy were present to support the speaker with their moral influence and loudly applauded his sentiments. Surely this was a yet greater compliment to Mr. Gokhale, — the greatest he could receive. And if we suppose, with the Bombay Judge, that the condemnation of his countrymen is an honour for which the erstwhile popular leader eagerly pants, surely the support and loud applause of the two highest police officials in the land, and one of them his old friend, Mr. Vincent, of whom he must have pleasant memories connected with his famous apology to the British army, — must have been yet dearer to the
Page – 238 statesman's heart. Only three things are noteworthy in the speech itself. Mr. Gokhale fervently declares that it is not only the duty of every Indian to shun religiously all aspirations towards independence, but also to rush to the defence of the Government when it is attacked. This explains Mr. Gokhale's recent speeches. It is a pity that he awoke to the sense of his duty so late; otherwise, not being overburdened by a sense of consistency he might have rushed to the help of the Government against himself when he was loudly advocating political boycott and even outdistancing the most extreme Nationalist by suggesting the refusal of payment of taxes. The second thing we note, is the remarkable statement that, even if we try to use peaceful methods, the Government will not long allow them to retain their peaceful character. This can mean only that the Government will deliberately force the advocates of Indian freedom to use violent means by persecuting the use of lawful and peaceful methods. We had recently to dissent from a much more limited suggestion by Sj. Bepin Pal, but an aspersion of this kind from Mr. Gokhale, not on officials but on the Government whom he is supporting so thoroughly in their policy, is amazing. Truly, Mr. Gokhale hardly seems to know what discretion means. In the same way he tried to teach the young men of India, among whom he admits that the gospel of independence has gained immense ground, that violence was the only road to the realisation of their cherished ideal. Finally, we find Mr. Gokhale appealing to the people of this country to give up their ideals from personal self-interest and the danger of harassment and martyrdom which attends the profession and pursuit of the new politics. Truly has a mighty teacher arisen in India ! We could have passed by an argument based on the doubt whether our course was right and helpful to the country, but this sordid appeal to the lowest motives in humanity, selfishness and cowardice, makes one's gorge rise. And this is the man who claims, we hear, to have preceded the Nationalists as a prophet of self-sacrifice and the cult of the motherland. Well may we echo the cry of the Israelite malcontents, "These be thy gods, O Israel !"
Page – 239
In our last issue we commented on the importance and significance of the People's Proclamation as part of the celebration of the 16th October. It is a curious irony of Fate that, immediately afterwards, it should have been deliberately decided by our leaders to drop the Proclamation from the proceedings. We do not know in what particular quarter of that quaking morass of fears and apprehensions which is called the mind of our leaders, or in answer to what particular touch the tremor arose which has manifested itself in this amazing excision. The mutilated copy of last year's circular which is disgraced by this act of inexplicable backsliding and timidity, comes out under the signatures of Sjts. Surendranath Banerji, Motilal Ghose and Rai Jotindranath Chaudhuri. We are certainly astonished to find Moti Babu's name under such a document and we can only assume that it was asserted without getting his consent or that consent was asked and given by telegraph from Deoghur without his being informed of the omission. Originally, there was another honoured name in that place, but the gentleman who bore it declined to sign unless the omission was rectified, and Moti Babu's name seems to have been thrust in at the last moment in order to fill up the gap, — a proceeding not very complimentary to one of the first living names in Bengal. Nor do we quite understand how Rai Jotindranath Chaudhuri induced himself to be a consenting party to the omission, if indeed he knew of it. Be that as it may, the Nationalist leaders will do their duty in opposing this act of culpable weakness. But we are curious to know how the people will take it. Their attitude will be some sign of the present altitude of the political thermometer. The tone and temper of the movement showed a distinct rise till the Hughly Conference, subsequently it seems to have been sinking. And no wonder, with such leadership. Even a nation of strong men led by the weak, blind or selfish, becomes easily infected with the vices of its leaders. And the strength of Bengal though immensely increased, is not yet the perfect and tempered steel that it must become, hard as adamant and light in the lifting.
Page – 240
The proclamation of the Anusilan Samiti in Calcutta is one of the most autocratic and unjustifiable acts that the bureaucracy have yet committed. The Calcutta Samiti has distinguished itself, since the beginning of its career, by the rigidity with which it has enforced its rule of not mixing as an association with current politics and confining itself to such activities as were not only unobjectionable, but of such a nature that even the most autocratic Government, provided it had the least sympathy with the moral and physical improvement of its subjects, must wholly approve. Its original and main motive has been the improvement of the physique in the race, and there has been no instance in which the Samiti has gone beyond its function as a physical training institution or tried to use the improved physique for any combined purpose. Beyond this the main activities have been turned to the help of the Police and the public on such occasions as the Ardhoday Yog, to the organisation of famine relief, in which the Samiti has done splendid work, and recently to other action recommended by the Government itself. We believe it has even to a certain extent enjoyed the approbation of high European officials. It is indeed an ironical comment on the demand for co-operation that the only great association born of the new movement which has shown any anxiety to depart from a line of strict independent activity and co-operate with the Government, should have been selected, at this time of peace and quiet, for proclamation on the extraordinary ground that it interferes in some undefined and mysterious way with the administration of the law. Advocates of co-operation, take note. Meanwhile what can the man in the street conclude except that the Government is determined to allow no organisation to exist among the Bengalis which has the least trace in it of self-help, training and patriotic effort ? For no explanation is vouchsafed of this arbitrary act. In an august and awful silence the gods of Belvedere hurl their omnipotent paper thunderbolts, careless of what mere men may think, confident in their self-arrogated attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and omni-benevolence, a divine, irresistible and irresponsible mystery.
Page – 241
We have received a letter from Mr. A. C. Sen of Delhi in which he recommends that the National Fund should be utilised for a Swadeshi Museum. The necessity of such an institution has been engaging our attention for some time, and no one can dispute the immense advantages that will accrue from it; but the institution, if properly conceived and managed, needs only a small initial fund for its support in the first stages of its existence and will soon become self-supporting. It is quite unnecessary to divert to it a large sum like the National Fund. Meanwhile, if we allow divided counsels to obtain as to the disposal of the fund, the only result will be that it will remain where it is, useless and unused. We note that the opposition to the proposal unanimously passed at Hughly emanates from a few individuals whose justification for professing to speak in the name of the subscribers is not yet clear, the Anglo-Indian papers who are interested in preventing the erection of the hall, and, among Indian papers, the Hindu Patriot, the Indian Mirror, and the Indian Nation, all of them papers of a limited circulation and opposed to the national movement in its most vital features. We are not aware that any organ of the popular party, Moderate or Nationalist, has opposed the sense of the country as formulated in Sj. Surendranath Banerji's resolution at Hughly.
Page – 242 |