{"id":1057,"date":"2013-07-13T01:32:18","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:32:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=1057"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:32:18","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:32:18","slug":"61-facts-and-opinions-1-1-1910-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\/61-facts-and-opinions-1-1-1910-vol-02-karmayogin-volume-02","title":{"rendered":"-61_Facts and Opinions 1-1-1910.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n
\n

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

\nVolume I – Jan.
\n1, 1910 – Number 26<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n


\n The
\n Perishing Convention<\/font><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

T<\/font>he
\nConvention has met at Lahore and the fact that it could meet at all, has
\nbeen hailed as a great triumph by the Anglo-Indian Press. But the success of
\nthis misbegotten body in avoiding immediate extinction has only served to show
\nthe marks of decay in every part of its being, and the loud chorus of eulogies
\nstreaming up from Anglo-India will not help to prolong its days. The miserable
\npaucity of its numbers, the absence of great ovations to its leaders, the
\nsurroundings of stifling coldness, indifference and disapproval in the midst
\nof which its orators perorated and resolved, have been too striking to be concealed.
\nEven the Statesman<\/i>, which is anxious to pass off this fiasco as a signal triumph for Moderatism
\nand dwells on the enthusiasm and earnestness in the Bradlaugh
\nHall, \u2014 an enthusiasm and earnestness other reporters were unable to discover,
\n\u2014 is obliged to admit the smallness of the
\ncircle to which these creditable feelings were confined. To this body calling
\nitself the Indian National Congress how many delegates did the Indian nation
\nsend ? The magnificent total of three hundred. From Bengal Sjs. Surendranath, Bhupendranath and A. Chaudhury with less than half-a-dozen followers enriched Lahore
\nwith their presence; Madras could muster only twelve; the Central Provinces
\nsent so few that the reporters are ashamed to mention the number. The United
\nProvinces sent, according to the Amrita
\nBazar Patrika<\/i>‘s Correspondent, about
\nthirty; the Bombay number is not mentioned, but even the Statesman<\/i> does
\nnot go beyond eighty; the rest came from the Punjab. Even the Anglo-Indian
\nchampion of Conventionism, estimating
\nlargely and on the basis of hopes and expectations, cannot raise the total to
\nfour hundred. The same paper takes refuge in the "huge concourse" of
\nspectators, but, when it comes to actual facts, the huge concourse melts away
\ninto some hundreds of spectators,<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 329<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

an estimate supported by the statement in the Bengalee<\/i>
\nthat there were considerably more spectators than delegates. It is admitted
\nthat Bradlaugh Hall which cannot seat more
\nthan three thousand was far from being filled, the Statesman<\/i> observing
\ntwo wings of the Hall to be quite empty and other accounts reporting the Hall
\nto be half empty. An allowance of some thousand spectators to watch the
\nperformances of the gallant three hundred in this Thermopylae of Moderatism, will be as liberal as the facts will
\nallow. Could there be more damning evidence of the unpopularity of this
\npretentious body of well-to-do oligarchs electing themselves semi-secretly in close electorates of a handful of
\nmen and yet daring to call themselves the nation’s Congress ? The farce is
\nalmost over. The falsity of their pretentions
\nhas been shown up signally. The Convention will not dare again to meet in the
\nPunjab; it will not come to Bengal; Nagpur, Amraoti and the Maharashtra
\nare barred to it: and if the attendance from
\nMadras is any sign, it will not be easy for it to command a following or an
\naudience again in the Southern Presidency. What remains to Conventionism ?
\nBombay city, Gujerat and the United
\nProvinces are still open to them for a season. The abstention of a disgusted
\nnation has passed sentence of death on this parody of the Indian National
\nCongress.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n


\n The
\n Convention President’s Address<\/a><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The most remarkable feature of Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya’s address is not what he said, but what
\nhe omitted to say. If the accounts telegraphed can be trusted, he said nothing
\nabout self-government, nothing about Swadeshi, \u2014 the Boycott, of course, the
\nConvention has boycotted, \u2014 nothing about the Bengal deportees, only a few
\nwords about the Transvaal. The speech was really a speech about the Reforms and
\nevery other great question of Indian politics was ignored or neglected. The
\nattitude of the Convention on the Reforms is marked by that open insincerity
\nwhich is the hall-mark of Moderate politics. The Convention resolution is made
\nup of two parts, an ecstatic tribute of praise and gratitude to the two Lords Morley and<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 330<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

Minto, for their earnest and "arduous" endeavours, (note the
\ngrotesque absurdity of the language), in extending to the people of this
\ncountry a "fairly liberal" measure of constitutional reform, and a
\ndetailed and damning indictment of the measure for restrictions and provisions
\nwhich are "excessive and unfair", "unjust, invidious and
\nhumiliating", "arbitrary and unreasonable", and for the
\n"general distrust" of the educated classes and the "ineffective
\nand unreal" composition of the non-official majority. If there is any
\nmeaning in language, the second part of the resolution gives the lie direct to
\nthe first. The language used is far stronger than any the Karmayogin<\/i> has ever permitted itself to employ
\nin its condemnation of the Reforms and, if the condemnation is at all
\njustified by facts, the Reforms are a reactionary and not a progressive piece
\nof legislation. And yet who is the chief mouthpiece of the Convention and the
\nmost damaging critic of the Reforms ? A
\ngentleman who has set the seal of approval on Lord Morley’s measure by entering
\nthe Council of his province as an elected member. Actions speak more strongly
\nthan words, and the Government of India care
\nlittle for criticism in detail so long as they get acceptation of the whole. From the Viceroy down to the obscurest
\nAnglo-Indian scribbler the appeal to the Moderates is to criticise details
\nhereafter, if they choose, but to accept the Reforms, the perpetual division of
\nthe two Indian communities, the humiliation of the Hindus, the extrusion of the
\neducated classes from their old leading position, the denial of the only true
\nbasis of self-government, \u2014 to let, as the Indian
\nDaily News<\/i> persuasively puts it, bygones be bygones. Anglo-India pats Moderatism on the back and says in effect:<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

"What
\nif we have kicked you downstairs ? Can’t you be a good fellow and sit quietly on
\nthe bottom step until we take it in our heads to pull you up a little
\nfarther ?" And Moderatism must comply if it wishes to be tolerated.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n


\n The
\n Alleged Breach of Faith<\/a><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Moderate critics are never tired of
\nharping on the difference between Lord Morley’s scheme and the Regulations and
\nalleging<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 331<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

or hinting that
\npromises have been made to the ear which have been broken in the act. The
\nStatesman<\/i> very
\nnaturally resents the implied charge of breach of faith. We do not know what
\nprivate hopes the Secretary of State may have held out to Mr. Gokhale or Sj. Surendranath Banerji,
\nbut, judging from Lord Morley’s public
\nutterances, we do not think the charge of a breach of faith can be for a moment
\nsustained. He has never pretended that his reform was the granting of a
\ndemocratic constitution or the first step towards Parliamentary
\nself-government. On the contrary he distinctly stated that if he had thought
\nhis measure to be anything of the kind he would have immediately withdrawn it.
\nAll that he promised was a scheme by which Indian public opinion could be more
\nliberally consulted, and there were from the beginning distinct indications
\nthat the Government would put its own meaning on the phrase and draw a
\ndistinction between Indian opinion and Indian educated opinion. If the
\nModerates chose to interpret this limited concession as the granting of a
\nconstitution and a new Magna Charta, neither Lord Morley
\nnor Lord Minto are to blame for a deliberate
\nand gratuitous self-deception and deception of the people. The complaint that
\nthe non-official majority is ineffective and unreal, means simply that it is
\nnot a popular majority. We do not think the Government ever promised a popular
\nmajority; they promised a non-official majority and they have given it. If the
\nModerates chose to believe that the Government would go out of its way to make
\nthe non-official majority a popular one, they have themselves to thank for this
\npitiful self-delusion, against which the Nationalists have been warning the
\ncountry for some time past. The truth is that they have been utterly worsted in
\ntheir diplomatic relations with British Liberalism and they are now trying to
\nexculpate themselves before the public by throwing the blame on their allies.
\nNo English statesman can be condemned for trying to get the best of a
\ndiplomatic bargain of this kind; the loser
\nmust blame his own folly, not the good faith of the other party. Did not the
\nBengal Moderates recently propose a similar bargain to the Nationalists in the
\nUnited Congress Committee’s negotiations ?
\nAnd, if the Nationalist had been fools enough to agree, would they have been<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 332<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

justified
\nafterwards in quarrelling with the good faith of the Moderates merely because
\nthey themselves had chosen to enter the Convention on conditions which would
\nhave meant hopeless ineffectiveness in that body and political suicide outside ?
\nIf infants in diplomacy choose to cherish an obstinate admiration for their own
\nMachiavellian cleverness or mere bookmen who do not understand the A.B.C. of
\npractical politics, elect to play the game with past masters of political
\nstatecraft, the result is a foregone conclusion. We have exposed over and over
\nagain the hollowness of the pretensions of
\nthis measure to figure as a great step forward in Indian administration or the
\nbeginning of a new progressive era in Indian politics, but we did not need the
\npublication of the Regulations to open our eyes to this hollowness. Lord Morley’s own statements, the nature of things and
\nof humanity and the clauses of the Reform Bill itself were a sufficient guide
\nto anyone with even an elementary knowledge of politics.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n


\n
\n The Nasik Murder<\/a><\/font><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The
\ntale of assassinations is evidently not at an end; and it is difficult to
\nbelieve that they will be until a more normal condition of things has been
\nrestored. The sporadic and occasional character of these regrettable incidents
\nis sufficient to prove that they are not the work of a widespread Terrorist organisation, but of individuals or small groups raw in organisation and
\nirresolute in action. The Anglo-Indian superstition of a great Revolutionary
\norganisation like the Russian Revolutionary Committee is a romantic delusion.
\nThe facts are entirely inconsistent with it. What we see is that, where there
\nis sporadic repression of a severe kind on the part of the authorities, there
\nis sporadic retaliation on the part of a few youthful conspirators, perfectly
\nrandom in its aim and objective. The Nasik murder is an act of terrorist
\nreprisal for the dangerously severe sentence passed on the revolutionary
\nversifier Savarkar. It is natural that there
\nshould have been many meetings in Maharashtra
\nto denounce the assassination, but such denunciations do not carry<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 333<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

us very far. They
\nhave no effect whatever on the minds of the men who are convinced that to slay
\nand be slain is their duty to their country. The disease is one that can only
\nbe dealt with by removing its roots, not by denouncing its symptoms. The
\nAnglo-Indian papers find the root in our criticism of Government action and
\npolicy and suggest the silencing of the Press as the best means of removing the
\nroot. If the Government believe in this antiquated diagnosis, they may
\ncertainly try the expedient suggested. Our idea is that it will only drive the
\nroots deeper. We have ourselves, while strongly opposing and criticising the
\nactions and policy of the bureaucracy, abstained from commenting on specific
\nacts of repression, as we had no wish to inflame public feeling; but to silence
\nNationalism means to help Terrorism. Our view is that the only way to
\nget rid of the disease is to disprove Mr. Gokhale’s
\nbaneful teaching that violence is the only means of securing independence, to
\ngive the people hope in a peaceful and effective means of progress towards that
\nideal, which is now the openly or secretly cherished ideal of every Indian, and
\nto that end to organise peaceful opposition and progress within the law. If the
\nGovernment can retrace their steps and remove the ban from lawful passive
\nresistance and self-help and the Nationalist Party, while holding its ultimate
\npolitical aim, will define its immediate objective within limits which a
\nRadical Government can hereafter consider, we believe politics in India will
\nassume a normal course under normal conditions. We propose to do our part; we
\nwill see whether the Government think it worth their while to respond. They
\nought to be able to understand by this time that Nationalism and not Moderatism is the effective political force in
\nIndia.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n


\n Transvaal
\n and Bengal<\/a><\/font><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

There
\nare two crying grievances which have done more than anything else to embitter
\npopular feeling against the authorities and in both cases the populations most
\ndirectly affected have resorted to passive resistance as the only remedy open
\nto them. The first is the gross and systematic oppression now being prac-<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 334<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

tised on the Indians in the
\nTransvaal, the other the repression of national aspirations towards unity and
\nself-development in Bengal, typified by
\nPartition and Deportation. Nothing can be more inconsistent than the attitude
\ntaken by the Moderate Convention towards these two questions. They have
\ntelegraphed their sympathy with the heroic passive resistance of the Transvaal
\nIndians; they have shown their sympathy with Bengal by boycotting our boycott.
\nEighteen thousand rupees were promised for the Transvaal Indians in the one
\nscene of enthusiasm which relieved the depressed dullness of the proceedings,
\nand although we have little hope that this spasmodic activity will be followed
\nup by steady support, it is better than nothing. On the other hand the Bengal
\nquestions were left to be moved by Bengalis, the Partition to Sj. Bhupendranath,
\nthe Deportations to Mr. A. Chaudhury. A
\ndeputation was appointed by the Convention to proceed to lay the question of
\nPartition once more before Lord Morley; and
\nof whom, think you, the deputation is to consist ? Sj.
\nSurendranath Banerji
\nand Sj. Bhupendranath Bose. Not a single
\nModerate deputy is forthcoming from the whole of India to support Bengal even
\nto this extent in its bitter and arduous struggle. Yet men are not ashamed to
\ngo from Bengal as self-elected delegates to a Convention which has disowned and
\ndishonoured Bengal and which Bengal has disowned.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 335<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Facts and Opinions Volume I – Jan. 1, 1910 – Number 26 The Perishing Convention   The Convention has met at Lahore and the fact…<\/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-1057","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\/1057","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=1057"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1057\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1057"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1057"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1057"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}