{"id":1044,"date":"2013-07-13T01:32:13","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:32:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=1044"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:32:13","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:32:13","slug":"16-facts-and-opinions-24-7-1909-vol-02-karmayogin-volume-02","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/01-sabcl\/02-karmayogin-volume-02\/16-facts-and-opinions-24-7-1909-vol-02-karmayogin-volume-02","title":{"rendered":"-16_Facts and Opinions 24.7.1909.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n
\n

Facts and Opinions<\/font><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

Volume
\nI – July 24,1909 – Number 5<\/span><\/p>\n


\n\tThe
\n Indiscretions of Sir Edward<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

                <\/b><\/font>
\nThe speech of Sir Edward Baker in the Bengal Council last week was
\none of those indiscretions which statesmen occasionally commit and invariably
\nrepent, but which live in their results long after the immediate occasion has
\nbeen forgotten. The speech is a mass of indiscretions from beginning to end.
\nIts first error was to rise to the bait of Mr. Madhusudan
\nDas’ grotesquely violent speech on the London murders and assume a
\npolitical significance in the act of the young man Dhingra.
\nThe theory of a conspiracy behind this act is, we believe, generally rejected
\nin England. It is not supported by a scrap of evidence and is repudiated by the
\nLondon police, a much more skilful detective body than any we have in India
\nand, needless to say, much more reliable in the matter of scrupulousness and
\nintegrity. It is the opinion of the London police that the act was dictated by
\npersonal resentment and not by political motives. It is not enough to urge in
\nanswer that the young man who committed this ruthless act himself alleges
\npolitical motives. His family insist that he is a sort of neurotic maniac, and
\nit is a matter of common knowledge that natures so disturbed often catch at
\ntendencies in the air to give a fictitious dignity and sensational interest to
\nactions really dictated by the exaggerated feelings common to these nervous
\ndisorders. Madanlal Dhingra evidently
\nconsidered that Sir William Curzon-Wyllie
\nwas his personal enemy trying to alienate his family and interfere with his
\npersonal freedom and dignity. To an ordinary man these ideas would not have
\noccurred or, if they had occurred, would not have excited homicidal feelings.
\nBut in disturbed minds such exaggerated emotions and their resultant acts are
\nonly too common. Unless and until something fresh transpires, no one has a
\nright to assume that the murder was a political assassination, much less the
\novert act of a political conspiracy. Anglo-Indian papers of the<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Page \u2013 97<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n

virulent type whose utterances are distorted by fear and hatred of
\nIndian aspirations, may assume that of which there is no proof, \u2014 nothing
\nbetter can be expected of them. But for the ruler of a province not only to
\nmake the assumption publicly but to base upon it a threat of an unprecedented
\ncharacter against a whole nation is an indiscretion which passes measure.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n The
\n Demand for Co-operation<\/a><\/font><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The second crying indiscretion in Sir Edward’s speech is the
\nextraordinary demand for co-operation which he makes upon the people of this
\ncountry. It is natural that a Government should desire co-operation on the part
\nof the people and under normal circumstances it is not necessary to ask for it;
\nit is spontaneously given. The circumstances in India are not normal. When a Government
\nexpects co-operation, it is because it either represents the nation or is in
\nthe habit of consulting its wishes. The Government in India does not represent
\nthe nation, and in Bengal at least it has distinctly set itself against its
\nwishes. It has driven the Partition through against the most passionate and
\nuniversal agitation the country has ever witnessed. It has set itself to
\nbaffle the Swadeshi-Boycott agitation. It has adopted against that movement all
\nbut the ultimate measures of repression. Nine deportations including in their
\nscope several of the most respected and blameless leaders of the people stand
\nto their debit account unredressed. Even in
\ngiving the new reforms, inconclusive and in some of their circumstances
\ndetrimental to the best interests of the country, it has been anxious to let it
\nbe known that it is not yielding to the wishes of the people but acting on its
\nown autocratic motion. Against such a system and principle of administration
\nthe people of this country have no remedy except the refusal of co-operation
\nand even that has been done only within the smallest limits possible. Under
\nsuch circumstances it is indeed a grotesque attitude for the ruler of Bengal to
\nget up from his seat in the Council and not only request co-operation but
\ndemand it on pain of indiscriminate penalties such as only an autocratic
\ngovernment can inflict on the people under its control, and this<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

Page \u2013 98<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n

with the full understanding that none of the grievances of the
\npeople are to be redressed. The meaning of co-operation is not passive
\nobedience, it implies that the Government shall rule according to the wishes of
\nthe people and the people work in unison with the Government for the
\nmaintenance of their common interests. By advancing the demand in the way he
\nhas advanced it, Sir Edward Baker has made
\nthe position of his Government worse and not better.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n  <\/p>\n

\n What
\n Co-operation ?<\/a><\/font><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The delusion under which the Government labours that the Terrorist
\nactivities have a great organisation at their back, is the source of its most
\nfatal mistakes. Everyone who knows anything of this country is aware that this
\ntheory is a fabrication. If it were a fact, the conspiracy would by this time
\nhave been exposed and destroyed. The assassinations have in all instances,
\nexcept the yet doubtful Maniktola conspiracy
\nnow under judicial consideration, been the act of isolated individuals, and
\neven in the Maniktola instance, if we accept the finding of the Sessions Court,
\nit has been shown by judicial investigation that the group of young men was
\nsmall and so secret in their operations that only a few even of those who lived
\nin their headquarters knew anything of the contemplated terrorism. Under such
\ncircumstances we fail to see either any justification for so passionate a call
\nfor co-operation or any possibility of an answer from the public. All that the
\npublic can do is to express disapprobation of the methods used by these
\nisolated youths. It cannot turn itself into a huge Criminal Investigation
\nDepartment to ferret out the half-dozen men here and there who possibly
\ncontemplate assassination and leave its other occupations and duties after the
\npattern of the police who in many quarters are so busy with suppressing fancied
\nSwadeshi outrages that real outrage and dacoity
\ngo unpunished. We do not suppose that Sir Edward Baker himself would make such
\na demand, but if he has any other co-operation in view it would be well if he
\nwould define it before he proceeds with his strenuous proposal to strike out
\nright and left at the innocent and<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

Page \u2013 99<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n

the guilty without discrimination. On the other hand the
\nAnglo-Indian papers are at no loss for the definite method of co-operation
\nwhich they demand from the country on peril of "stern and relentless
\nrepression". They demand that we shall cease to practise or preach
\npatriotism and patriotic self-sacrifice and submit unconditionally to the
\neternally unalterable absolutism which is the only system of government Lord Morley will tolerate in India. That demand has
\nonly to be mentioned to be scouted.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n  <\/p>\n

\n Sir Edward’s Menace<\/a><\/font><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The final indiscretion of Sir Edward Baker was also the worst. We do
\nnot think we have ever heard before of an official in Sir Edward’s responsible
\nposition uttering such a menace as issued from the head of this province on an
\noccasion and in a place where his responsibility should have been specially
\nremembered. We have heard of autocrats threatening contumacious opponents with
\ncondign punishment, but even an autocrat of the fiercest and most absolute kind does
\nnot threaten the people with the punishment of the innocent. The thing is done
\nhabitually \u2014 in Russia; it has been done recently in Bengal; but it is always
\non the supposition that the man punished is guilty. Even in the deportations
\nthe Government has been eager to impress the world with the idea that although
\nit is unable to face a court of justice with the "information, not
\nevidence" which is its excuse, it had ample grounds for its belief in the
\nguilt of the deportees. Sir Edward Baker is the first ruler to declare with
\ncynical openness that if he is not gratified in his demands, he will not care
\nwhether he strikes the innocent or the guilty. By doing so he has dealt an
\nalmost fatal blow at the prestige of the Government. If this novel principle of
\nadministration is applied, in what will the Government that terrorises from
\nabove be superior to the dynamiter who terrorises from below ? Will not this be the negation of all law,
\njustice and government ? Does it not mean
\nthe reign of lawless force and that worst consummation of all, Anarchy from
\nabove struggling with Anarchy from below ? The Government which denies the first
\nprinciple of settled society, not only sanc- <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 100<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\ntions but introduces anarchy. It is thus that established authority
\ncreates violent revolutions. They abolish by persecution all the forces,
\nleaders, advocates of peaceful and rapid progress and by their own will set
\nthemselves face to face with an enemy who cannot so be abolished. Terrorism
\nthrives on administrative violence and injustice; that is the only atmosphere
\nin which it can thrive and grow. It sometimes follows the example of indiscriminate
\nviolence from above; it sometimes, though very rarely, sets it from below. But
\nthe power above which follows the example from below is on the way to
\ncommitting suicide. It has consented to the abrogation of the one principle
\nwhich is the life-breath of settled governments.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nThe Personal Result<\/a><\/font><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nSir
\nEdward Baker came into office with the reputation of a liberal ruler anxious to
\nappease unrest. Till now he has maintained it in spite of the ominous
\npronouncement he made, when introducing measures of repression, about the
\ninsufficiency of the weapons with which the Government was arming itself. But
\nby his latest pronouncement, contradicting as it does the first principles not
\nonly of Liberalism but of all wise Conservatism all over the world, he has gone
\nfar to justify those who were doubtful of his genuine sympathy with the
\npeople. Probably he did not himself realise what a wound he was giving to his
\nown reputation and with it to his chances of carrying any portion of the
\npeople with him.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nA One-sided Proposal<\/a><\/font><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nA
\nwriter in the Indian World<\/i> has been holding out the olive branch to the
\nadvanced Nationalist party and inviting them into the fold of the body which
\nnow calls itself the Congress. The terms of this desirable conciliation seem to
\nus a little peculiar. The Nationalists are to give up all their contentions and
\nin return the Bombay coterie may graciously give up their personal<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

Page \u2013 101<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n


\ndislike of working
\nwith the Nationalist leaders. This is gracious but a little unconvincing. The
\nonly difficulty the mediator sees in the way is the constitutional point raised
\nby a section of the Moderates against the arbitrary action of the Committee of
\nthe Convention in passing a constitution and forcing it on the delegates
\nwithout submission to freely elected delegates sitting in a session of the
\nCongress itself. The mediator proposes to get round the objection by the Bombay
\ncoterie agreeing to pass the Constitution en bloc<\/i> through the Congress
\nprovided an undertaking is given by the Nationalists that they will accept
\nbodily the whole of the Constitution and make no opposition to any of its
\nprovisions ! A very remarkable proviso ! The writer assumes that the Nationalists have
\naccepted the Constitution bodily and are willing to sign the creed. We think he
\nis in error in his assumptions. The Nationalists are not likely to give any
\nundertaking which will abrogate their constitutional right to make their own
\nproposals about the Constitution at the beginning or to suggest amendments to
\nit hereafter. They will sign no creed, as it is against their principles to
\nmake the Congress a sectional body and they refuse to bind themselves to regard
\ncolonial self-government as the ultimate goal of our national development.
\nWhatever resolutions are passed by a properly constituted Congress they will
\naccept as the temporary opinion of the majority while reserving the right,
\nwhich all minorities reserve, of preaching their own convictions. They refuse
\nto regard the Madras Convention or the contemplated Lahore Convention as a
\nsitting of the Congress or its resolutions as the will of the country. The
\nposition taken, that the Bombay coterie are in possession of the Congress and
\nit is theirs to admit the Nationalists or not at their pleasure is one we
\ncannot recognise. If there is to be an united Congress it must resume its life
\nat the point where the Calcutta session broke off. All that has happened in
\nbetween is a time of interregnum.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n The
\n Only Remedy<\/a><\/font><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The attempt to reunite the parties on such lines is foredoomed to<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

Page \u2013 102<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n


\nfailure.
\nNor is it likely that even if the Nationalists were entirely accommodating
\nthere would be any chance of union. The attitude of Mr. Gokhale is conclusive on this point. Not only has he definitely
\nseparated himself and his school from the advocates of Swaraj and passive
\nresistance but he has denounced them as enemies of the country and handed them
\nover to the "stern and relentless repression" of the authorities. The
\nTribune<\/i> calls on Bengal to give up the boycott on the ground that it is
\nno longer sanctioned by the "Congress" as it chooses to call a body
\nwhich even the whole of the Moderate party were unable to join. The only remedy
\nfor the situation is for those who desire unity to rebuild the National
\nAssembly from the bottom on the basis of provincial unity and abstention from
\nany mutilated body Moderate or Nationalist, however august the name under
\nwhich it masks its unrepresentative character, so long as it professes to speak
\nfor the nation and yet refuses to admit freely its elected representatives.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n  <\/p>\n

\n The
\n "Bengalee" and Ourselves<\/a><\/font><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n


\nThe
\nBengalee<\/i> has answered our facts and opinions with its facts and
\ncomments. Unfortunately we find in our contemporary’s answer all comment and no
\nfact. For the most part he is busy trying to prove that we were really
\ninconsistent and contradictory, or, if he misunderstood us, it was due to our uninstructed use of language. In the first place
\nwe did not expressly say that we saw God in everything and only specially in
\nspecial movements. Of course we did not. As we pointed out we could not be
\nalways guarding ourselves against gratuitous misconceptions, and the
\nomnipresence of God is such an obvious fact that it has not to be expressly
\nstated. It is curious that our contemporary’s powerful intelligence seems still
\nunable to grasp the point about leadership. If the movement were the result of
\nhuman calculation or guided by human calculation, or even if every constructive
\nstep were the result of mature deliberation, there would be no point in
\ninsisting that the movement was created and led (we beg pardon, we mean
\nspecially created<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

Page \u2013 103<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n


\nand led,) by God and not by human wisdom. We pointed out
\nthat none of these statements could be advanced in the face of the facts, and
\nour contemporary has not been able to meet our arguments; he has simply restated his previous unsupported assumption.
\nSecondly, we were unfortunate enough to use in one place the word
\n"His" where our contemporary thinks we should have used the word
\n"that". With all submission we think our language was perfectly
\nclear. We said His purpose and we meant His purpose, the purpose of raising up
\nIndia. Then again we were unfortunate enough to indulge in an ironical
\nrepetition of our contemporary’s phrase "mere" faith, within commas
\ninverted and our contemporary with pretentious seriousness insists on taking
\nthis as our own epithet and seriously meant. We have pointed out that in our
\nidea of faith it includes the logical analysing reason, it includes experience
\nand exceeds it. It exceeds logical reason because it uses the higher intuitive
\nreason; it
\nexceeds experience because experience often gives the balance of its support to
\none conclusion where faith using intuition inclines to the opposite
\nconclusion.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n God
\n and Man<\/a><\/font><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Our contemporary does not understand why
\nwe wrote of God and the universal force or why we insisted on the special manifestation
\nof the Divine Force as opposed to its veiled workings through human egoism. We
\ndid so because we had to oppose the excess of that very egoism. We have not
\nrisen to the heights of Monism from which he scoffs benignly at our dualism. It
\nmay be the final truth that there is nothing but God, but for the purposes of
\nlife we have to recognise that there is a dualism in the underlying unity. It
\nprofits nothing to say, for instance, "The Divine Force wrote two columns
\nof Facts and Comments the other day in the Bengalee<\/i>."
\nGod reveals Himself not only in the individual where He is veiled by ignorance
\nand egoism, but in Himself. When the Bengalee<\/i> sees no alternative to
\nman’s self-conscious action except unconscious action, it is under the
\ninfluence of<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

Page \u2013 104<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n


\nEuropean
\nmaterialism which sees only conscious creatures in an .unconscious
\ninanimate Nature. The Divine Force is not unconscious but conscious and
\nintelligent and to see Him as a conscious power only in men is to deny Him
\naltogether. When again our contemporary uses a misapplication of the truth of Adwaita to justify the deifying of his own reason,
\nhe is encouraging practical atheism while taking the divine name in vain. God
\nmanifests Himself in everything, He manifests Himself in our reason, therefore
\nlet us forget God and rely on our own human calculations. That is the train of
\nargument. What is the use of relying on God ?
\nLet us look to our own safety. What is the use of being brave in the hour of
\nperil ? If our leader goes, the movement stops. Mām anusmara yudhya ca<\/i>, is the motto of the Karmayogin. God manifests himself in the
\nindividual partially, but He stands behind the progress of the world wholly. We
\nare bound to use our own intellects, we cannot help it if we would, but we must
\nremember that it is a limited intellect and be prepared for the failure of
\nschemes and plans, for calamity, for defeat, without making these things an
\nexcuse for abandoning His work, laying our principles on the shelf or sending
\nout a cry to discourage steadfastness and self-sacrifice. Our plans may fail,
\nGod’s purpose cannot. That is why we laid so much stress on the fact that this
\nhas been a movement which, as the man in the street would say, has led itself,
\nin which individuals have been instruments and not the real shapers and leaders. We have faith and we believe
\nin the great rule of life in the Gita,
\n"Remember me and fight." We believe in the mighty word of assurance
\nto the Bhakta, maccittah sarvadurgāni matprasādāt tarisyasi<\/i>, "If thou reposest thy heart and mind in Me by My grace thou shalt pass safe through all difficulties and
\ndangers." We believe that the Yoga of the Gita will play a large part in
\nthe uplifting of the nation, and this attitude is the first condition of the
\nYoga of the Gita. When anybody tries to discourage our people in this attitude,
\nwe are bound to enter the lists against him. We recognise that to argue with
\nthose who have only opinion but no realisation is a hopeless task, since it is
\nonly by entering into communion with the Infinite and seeing the Divine Force
\nin all that one can<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

Page \u2013 105<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n

\nbe intellectually sure of its conscious action. But at
\nleast we can try to remove the philosophical delusions and confusions which
\nmislead men from the right path and veil European materialism under
\ngeneralities drawn from Vedanta.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 106<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Facts and Opinions Volume I – July 24,1909 – Number 5 The Indiscretions of Sir Edward                   The speech of Sir Edward Baker in…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1044","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-02-karmayogin-volume-02","wpcat-23-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1044","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1044"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1044\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1044"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1044"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1044"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}