Facts and Opinions

Volume I - Sept. 18, 1909 - Number 13

The Two Programmes

            There could hardly be a more striking contrast than the pronounced dissimilarity between the resolutions passed at the Hughly Provincial Conference under the pressure of the Moderate leaders' threat to dissociate themselves from the proceedings if the Pabna resolutions were reaffirmed and the resolutions passed at the enthusiastic and successful District Conference held last Saturday and Sunday in the Surma Valley. They are severally the reaffirmation of two different programmes, the advanced Moderate programme of a section of opinion in West Bengal supported by Faridpur in the East and a sprinkling of individuals in some of the large towns and the Nationalist programme as advanced by East Bengal and a great section of opinion in the West. The advanced Moderate programme contemplates Colonial self-government as a distant and ultimate goal, advocates commercial boycott of foreign goods, contemplates National education as an educational experiment supported practically by some, in theory only by others, and regards self-help as a pendant and subordinate to so-called constitutional agitation, in other words, the acceptance of everything the Government does subject to protest, criticism and, when necessary, invective. This is the theory of co-operation plus opposition, opposition in words, co-operation in practice. It has to be seen how far the reassertion of this policy, for some time discredited, will go in its results and what is the underlying motive of the Moderate leaders in insisting on the reassertion at this particular moment when the Partition, deportations, coercive laws are in full operation and not a single one of our grievances redressed. The Nationalist programme asserts autonomy as the right of all nations, advocates the use of every legitimate and peaceful means towards its establishment whether swift or gradual, and especially favours the use of self-help to train and

organise the nation for self-government and of passive resistance to confirm and defend the measures of self-help and to bring pressure on the bureaucracy to yield a substantial measure of self-government. The defect of the Nationalist Party is not in energy or organisation, for it has a superior capacity in these respects to its opponents, but in means and the present weight of its personalities. It is only by effective, persistent and organised work with what means it has at its disposal that the party can make up for this inferiority. That organisation must now be taken definitely in hand. It is doubtful whether the frail hope of an United Congress will ever take shape as a materialised fact, and even if it does, it is likely to be under such circumstances that the Nationalists would be ill-advised to put their main energy into Congress work until they have so all-pervading and solid a strength in the country as to make it possible for them to assert themselves without any peril to the united progress of the nation. They must vindicate the superiority of their programme by its effectual execution and result, leaving the Moderates for the present to the raptures of their rapprochement with the bureaucracy.

The Reforms

An argument advanced in favour of the Reforms is that, however ineffectual and illusory the expansion of the Legislative Councils may be — and the illusory nature of that expansion cannot be seriously denied, — still there is included in the Reform Scheme a measure of local self-government generous, complete and effective, which is well worth acceptance. We are by no means certain how far a substantial measure of local self-government is really contemplated by the Government. It was originally proposed, we believe, to form local self-governing bodies elected by the people and uncontrolled by any official chairman. But many things were originally proposed which seem to have little chance of taking shape as ultimate actualities. We are not aware how far the measure will be carried out, what limitation may be put upon it or whether the control of the official chairman will not be

replaced by a higher and more distant but eventually more effective control. We shall have to be thoroughly assured on these points before we can allow that any measure of local self-government included in the measure can outweigh the nugatory character of the main change in the instruments of government. Unless the local self-government is complete and ungrudging, it may be a convenient measure and to a slight extent strengthen the educated class in the mofussils, but it cannot be a vital measure or even one of the first importance among changes of administrative structure. In any case it cannot outweigh, however full it may be, the disastrous character of the principle of separate electorates introduced by Lord Morley, intentionally or unintentionally, as the thin end of a wedge which, when driven well home, will break our growing nationality into a hundred jarring pieces. Only by standing aloof from the new councils can this destruction be avoided. This is the point on which we feel bound to lay stress again and again because it is the one vital and effective thing in the new measure, all the rest is mere frippery and meaningless decoration. It would be a poor statesmanship which bought a small and temporary gain by throwing away the future of the nation and the hope of an united India, and posterity will have reason to curse the memory of any popular leader who for the sake either of more gilt on the "gilded shams" or even for a real measure of local self-government, induces the nation to accept the reforms with the separate electorate and special privileges for one community as an essential feature.

The Limitations of the Act

There is another point in this connection which destroys the little value that might possibly have attached to the argument from Lord Morley's intentions about local self-government. One peruses the Act in vain for a guarantee of any measure of reform which may be conceded under it to the people except the number of elected and nominated members in the Councils. Everything else, literally everything else, is left to the discretion of Anglo-Indian officialdom. No doubt the present Secretary of

State will have the ultimate decision as to the rules of election, nomination, formation of electorates, acceptance or rejection by the Government of elected members, veto, division, interpellation etc., and he may decide to put the felt on thickly and copiously. But even if this be done, not one of these things will be assured to us, not one of them but may be reversed by subsequent Viceroys and Secretaries of State, without infringing the meagre provisions of this Act. As for local self-government we fail to find any guarantee either for its introduction or, if introduced, — as, no doubt, Lord Morley will have some slight respect even yet for his own reputation, — for its retention in the future. What is to prevent a future Alexander Mackenzie in the Viceregal seat from so altering any measure that may be given as to render it nugatory and what is to prevent a future Curzon in the India Office from confirming this step rearwards ? So far as we have been able to find, nothing at all. We are just where we were before, with concessions granted by arbitrary condescension which may be withdrawn at any moment by arbitrary arrogance. Well may Lord Morley say that this is not a measure of self-government and, if he thought it were, he would not concede the measure. The Nationalist Party is not opposed to all acceptance of reform; it would welcome and support a measure which would really concede even a minimum of control and provide a means for future expansion while perpetually guaranteeing the small amount conceded; but a measure by which no control is given, no step taken is guaranteed as to permanence and no provision is made for future expansion is one which no thinking man would care to have even apart from other defects, and no practical politician will look at for a moment when coupled with provisions disastrous to the future of the nation.

Shall We Accept the Partition?

This may sound a startling proposition to a nation which is perpetually reaffirming its decision never to accept the settled fact. But it rises definitely upon the question of accepting the reforms. We cannot conceal from ourselves the staringly patent fact that

if we accept the reforms, we accept the Partition. The new changes are partly meant to confirm the division which every English statesman declares it to be essential to British prestige to perpetuate, and if the older leaders of West Bengal accept the reforms and stand for Sir Edward Baker's Council or allow their followers to stand for it, the sooner the partition resolution is deleted from the proceedings of Provincial and District conferences and the celebration of the 16th October discontinued, the better for our national honesty and sincerity. If the West Bengal leaders, who under the pressure of public opinion gave up their seats on the old Council and the idea of becoming Honourables in future, join the reformed Council in Calcutta, there is nothing to prevent the East Bengal leaders from joining Sir Lancelot Hare's Council in the capital of the New Province. If that happens, where will the Anti-Partition agitation be and where the solemn vow of unity ? To solemnly meet once a year and declare that we will never, never accept what we have accepted, would be a farce too hypocritical for the conscience of the most cynical or the intelligence of the most deluded to tolerate. Any revival of the fiction that it is East Bengal which has been partitioned from West Bengal and therefore there is no obligation on the West Bengal leaders to boycott the Councils while the East Bengal leaders are so bound, will not be suffered. But the Moderates have definitely and rigidly excluded political boycott from their programme; yet what is the abstention from the Councils but a political boycott ? If they carry this exclusion to its logical result and accept the reformed Councils, that is the end of the Anti-Partition agitation. Lord Morley's policy will be entirely successful and Mr. Gokhale may still more loudly acclaim him as the saviour of India from a state of anarchy and chaos.