{"id":1091,"date":"2013-07-13T01:32:29","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:32:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=1091"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:32:29","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:32:29","slug":"68-the-new-policy-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\/68-the-new-policy-vol-02-karmayogin-volume-02","title":{"rendered":"-68_The New Policy.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n
\n
\n

\n\t\tThe New Policy<\/font><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n


\nA<\/font><\/b>
\nPOLICY
\n<\/span><\/b>of conciliation, a policy of trust in the people, a policy liberal,
\nprogressive, sure if slow, \u2014 that was the forecast made by the Moderate
\nastrologers when the Reform comet sailed into our startled heavens. The
\nprophets and augurs of the Anglo-Indian Press friendly to Moderate India \u2014
\nfriendly on condition of our giving up all aspirations that go beyond the
\nReforms \u2014 prophesied high, loud and often to the same purpose, and if, like the
\nRoman augurs, they winked and smiled mysteriously at each other when they met,
\nthe outside world was not supposed to know anything of their private opinions.
\nEven the disillusionment caused by the publication of the Councils Rules has
\nnot prevented this party of wise and able politicians from supporting by
\nparticipation the Reforms which they condemned, and belauding the intention of
\nthe Anglo-Indian reformers while swearing dismally and violently at their
\npractice. Bad as it is, we must co-operate so as to make the best of the new
\nmeasure. To make the best of a bad measure is to make it a success and so
\nprevent or delay the coming of a better. This at least is our idea of the
\nmatter, but we belong to a party not of wise and able politicians who take the
\nfull profit of that which they condemn as disastrous and injurious, but of men
\nwho have the misfortune still to believe in logic, principle and experience. To
\nbe logical is to be a mere theorist, to cling to principle is to be a doctrinaire
\nand to be guided by experience, the world’s and our own, is to be unpractical.
\nOnly those whose theory is confused and practice self-contradictory and
\nhaphazard, can be wise politicians and capable of guiding the country aright.
\nFrom this standpoint the proclamation of all India as seditious is, doubtless,
\nthe first step in the new policy, the policy of conciliation and liberalism. It
\nis the sign-manual of the great reformer, Lord Morley,
\nupon his work, the loud-tongued harbinger of
\nthe golden Age.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n


\nNo particular motive can be alleged for
\nthis sudden procla-<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 369<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n


\nmation nor is any alleged. The people are left to speculate in the dark as
\nto the mystic motives of Lords Minto and Morley in this remarkable step forward, or to get
\nwhat light and comfort they can from the speculations of our Anglo-Indian
\nfriends and advisers, who seem to be as much in the dark as ourselves and can
\nonly profess their blind religious faith in the necessity and beneficence of the
\nmeasure and appeal to all patriotic Indians to co-operate in coercing the
\nnational movement into silence. If India had been full of meetings of a
\nseditious or doubtful nature, the necessity of the measure could have been
\nestablished. Even if the national life were pulsating swiftly though
\nblamelessly, its "aetiology", \u2014 if we may use a word which may
\npossibly be condemned by Mr. Petman or Mr.
\nGrey as seditious, \u2014 could have been understood, though not its necessity. But
\nat present, with the exception of an occasional scantily attended meeting in
\nthe Calcutta squares, the only political meetings held are those in which
\nabhorrence of Terrorism is expressed or Vigilance Committees of leading
\ncitizens organised to patrol the E.B.S.R. at
\nnight even in this chilly weather, and those in which the Deccan Sabha
\ndrinks deep of the political sermons and homilies of Lord Morley’s personal friend, Mr. Gokhale. Was it to stop these that the
\nproclamation of all India became necessary ?<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

It has been freely alleged that the prevalence of bombs and
\nTerrorism in Bombay, Punjab and Bengal is the justification of the measure, on
\nthe ground that open sedition leads to secret assassination. Nationalism to Terrorism. It is obvious that to
\nattempt to meet secret conspiracy by prohibiting public agitation is a remedy
\nopen to the charge of absurdity. The secret conspirator rejoices in silence,
\nthe Terrorist finds his opportunity in darkness. Is not the liberty of free
\nspeech and free writing denied to the Russian people by more rigorous
\npenalties, a more effective espionage, a far more absolute police rule than any
\nthat can be attempted in India ? Yet where
\ndo the bomb and the revolver, the Terrorist and the secret conspirator flourish
\nmore than in Russia ? The conspirator has his own means of propaganda which the
\nlaw finds it difficult to touch. The argument, however, is that it is only in
\nan atmosphere of dissatisfaction, disaffection
\nand sedition that the propaganda of the<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 370<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

conspirator
\ncan be effective, and Nationalism creates that atmosphere. Criticism of the
\nGovernment leads to dissatisfaction with the Government, dissatisfaction leads
\nto the aspiration for a better form of Government, aspiration of this kind when
\nbaulked leads to disaffection, disaffection leads to secret conspiracy and
\nassassination. Therefore stop all means of criticising the Government and the
\nfirst cause being removed, the final effect will disappear. That this is the
\nactual train of reasoning, conscious or unconscious, in the minds of those who
\nadvise, initiate or approve a policy of repression is beyond doubt. It is
\nevident in all they say or write.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

Unfortunately the statement of the premises in this chain is
\nincomplete and the conclusion is therefore vitiated. The first premise may be
\ngranted at once. In a country well satisfied with its lot, a nation at ease and
\naware of prosperity and progress, the propaganda of the secret conspirator must
\nnecessarily fail. In India itself, if we are to believe the Times<\/i>,
\nsecret societies have existed for upwards of forty or fifty years. How is it
\nthat they had no success and no one was aware of their existence until the
\nreaction after Lord Ripon’s regime
\nculminated in the viceroyalty of Lord Curzon ?
\nDissatisfaction is not created by public criticism, it is created by the
\nadverse facts on which public criticism fastens, and it crystallises either in
\npublic criticism or in secret discontent. The public criticism creates public
\nagitation, the secret discontent creates secret conspiracy. Both are born of
\nthe same circumstances, but the lines of development are entirely different,
\nnor is there much sympathy between them. The public agitator dreads the secret
\nconspirator, the secret conspirator despises the public agitator, even when
\nthey are moving towards the same end. The man most detested and denounced by
\nthe Indian revolutionary organisations now active at Paris, Geneva and Berlin,
\nis Sj. Bepin Chandra Pal, the prophet and first preacher
\nof passive resistance. Yet the object of both is almost identical, the
\nNationalist agitator insisting on perfect autonomy, the revolutionist on
\nseparation, both being merely different forms of independence. The question for
\nthe authorities is whether they will try to ignore or silence the public
\ncriticism or remove the cause of dissatisfaction. If they ignore<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 371<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

without silencing
\npublic criticism, the dissatisfaction grows in volume until it becomes the
\naspiration for a better form of Government. They must then either satisfy that
\naspiration or silence it, they can no longer ignore it. This game of ignoring
\nthe obvious is, like the first crude attempt of Nationalism in India to ignore
\nthe Government, foredoomed to failure; it
\nonly postpones and intensifies the problem, it does not get rid of it. Yet
\nthis was the policy long followed by the Indian Government towards the Congress
\nmovement. On the other hand, they may silence the public criticism or trample
\non it. If they trample on it, the aspiration becomes disaffection not
\nnecessarily to the sovereign, but to the form and system of Government then obtaining,
\nwith a cry for absolute transformation. This was what happened in India in
\n1905. Trampling on public opinion without silencing its expression is mere
\nmadness; it leads to the genesis of great revolutionary movements, injures the
\nGovernment, endangers public peace and order, and helps nobody. This method
\ndoes not even postpone the necessity of a solution, it hastens it by
\nintensifying the problem to breaking-point. Yet this was the policy of Lord Curzon. He not only permitted the expression of
\npublic discontent, but he fostered it by arguing with and trying to persuade it; yet he invariably trampled on the thing he
\npermitted. It is statesmanship of this kind which ruins empires and destroys
\ngreat nations. There is another kind of policy, and that is to play with the
\nmonster of discontent, to chide it, whip it and yet throw it sops while taking
\nadvantage of the monster’s preoccupation with the sop to wind the chain round
\nits neck tighter and tighter. This is also bad policy. The whip enrages, the
\nsop does not soothe but irritates, the tightening of the chain only shortens
\nthe distance between the tamer and the brute;
\n\u2014 for the difficulty is that, the tamer has
\nto hold the chain, he cannot tie it to something else and get out of springing
\ndistance.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

Eventually, either discontent has to be satisfied or silenced. If it
\nis satisfied, the whole difficulty disappears and perfectly amicable relations
\nare restored. That was the policy pursued by England with regard to its
\ncolonies after the severe lesson learned in America, with the result that the
\nbond between the colonies<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 372<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

and Great Britain
\nstill defies the efforts of Time and
\nCircumstance to loosen or snap them. But if discontent is not to be satisfied,
\nthe question then for the ruler is whether he prefers it to crystallise in
\npublic agitation and peaceful but possibly effective resistance, or in secret
\nconspiracy, terrorism and eventually armed insurrection. It must be one of the
\ntwo, for to expect an immense impulse like the national impulse to sink to rest
\nwithout being either crushed or satisfied, is to expect impossible miracles.
\nThe Anglo-Indian appeal to the political leaders to be satisfied and cease from
\nagitation is a singularly foolish and futile
\none. If the political leaders were to comply, even the most popular and trusted
\nof them, they would cease to be leaders the next day. The dwindling numbers
\nthat attend the Convention sittings are a signal proof of this very obvious
\nfact; that diminution has been effected, it
\nmust be remembered, without public agitation, without any organisation or
\nactivity of the Nationalist Party, by the mere operation of a law of Nature.
\nThe aspiration, however created, is there and it is a fire mounting out of the
\nbowels of the earth, which no man’s hand can extinguish. The political leaders
\nknow that they cannot quench it, if they would; the Government thinks it can.
\nAnd the method it seems to favour, if the extension of the Seditious Meetings
\nAct and the prosecutions of papers and publications or their leaders all over
\nIndia are any sign, is to silence public criticism.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

If our view of the question is right, it is evident that to paralyse
\npublic agitation is to foster Terrorism, and we can only suppose that the
\nGovernment think Terrorism easier to deal with than public agitation. This
\nseems to us a grievous error. If experience shows anything, it is that
\nTerrorism is never extinguished except by the removal of its causes. The
\ndifference between Terrorism and open rebellion is that open rebellion often
\neffects its object, but can easily be crushed, while Terrorism does not effect
\nits object, but cannot be crushed. The only thing that Terrorism can do is to
\ncompel the Government to satisfy partially the more moderate demands of
\npeaceful agitation as the lesser of two evils, and this is a result which the
\nTerrorist looks on with contempt. He is always extreme and fanatical and will
\nnot be satisfied with anything less than immediate freedom gained by<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 373<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

violence. He is
\nconfident of his result, he is passionately and intolerantly attached to his
\nmethod. Irish Terrorism only disappeared because of the expectation of Home
\nRule by the alliance with British Liberalism; Russian Terrorism is still kept
\nalive by the impotence of the Duma; Anarchism flourishes because the
\nGovernments of Europe have not found any way of circumventing it. Terrorism may
\nperish of inanition; coercion is its food and its fuel.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

The policy now being followed by Lord Minto’s
\nGovernment has neither immediate justification nor ultimate wisdom. It is the
\nold futile round which reluctant authority has always trod when unable to
\nreconcile itself to inevitable concession. It is a wasteful, ruinous and futile
\nprocess. For if the Government were to declare tomorrow that it would no longer
\ntolerate public opposition and deport all the leaders of public and peaceful
\nagitation in the country, it would only stimulate more formidable and
\nunscrupulous forces and substitute a violent, dangerous and agonising process
\nfor one which, even if a little painful, is helpful, economical and
\nconstructive.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 374<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The New Policy   A POLICY of conciliation, a policy of trust in the people, a policy liberal, progressive, sure if slow, \u2014 that was…<\/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-1091","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\/1091","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=1091"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1091\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1091"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1091"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1091"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}