{"id":1100,"date":"2013-07-13T01:32:33","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:32:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=1100"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:32:33","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:32:33","slug":"59-creed-and-constitution-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\/59-creed-and-constitution-vol-02-karmayogin-volume-02","title":{"rendered":"-59_Creed and Constitution.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n
\n


\nCreed and Constitution<\/font><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n


\nT<\/font><\/span><\/b>HE
\n<\/b><\/span>attempt to
\nbring about the unity of the two parties in Bengal as a preliminary to the
\nholding of an United Congress has split on the twin rocks of creed and
\nconstitution. We will place before the country as succinctly as possible the
\nissues which were posited during the negotiations and state clearly the
\nNationalist attitude, leaving it to Bengal to judge between us and the
\nupholders of the Convention’s creed and constitution. We ask our countrymen to
\nconsider whether the concessions we made were not large and substantial and the
\nsingle concession offered to us worthless and nugatory, whether the
\nreservations we made were not justifiable and necessary, except on the view
\nthat principles are of no value in politics, and, if they come to the
\nconclusion that the proposals we made were fair and moderate, we ask them to
\nabsolve us of all responsibility for the failure of the negotiations.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

The terms offered by the Moderate party were based on a compromise
\nframed at the Amrita Bazar<\/i> Office
\nlast year which has since been rejected by the Moderates in one of its most important
\nfeatures, namely, the insistence on the acceptance of the four Calcutta
\nresolutions as an indispensable condition of union. The Moderate proposal was
\nthat the Nationalists should sign the creed unconditionally and accept the Conventionist constitution, but that the Bombay
\nleaders should be asked to consent to the formation of a Committee this year at
\nLahore to revise the Constitution and pass it as revised at the next session.
\nThe terms of the revision would naturally be left to that Committee and if it
\nwere equally composed of Nationalists and Moderates, there would have been some
\nvalue in the concession. But by a rule of the Moderate constitution all
\nAssociations not of three years’ standing would be debarred from sending
\ndelegates. The formation of the Nationalists into a distinct party was only
\ncompleted in the year 1906, that is precisely three years ago, and the rule
\nwas evidently framed in order to help in making impossible<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 319<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

the
\nelection of Nationalist delegates. At the time the rule was framed there was
\nnot and could not be any association of our party with the requisite
\nqualification, and such bodies as would have been qualified now, have mostly
\nperished in the storm of repression which
\nbroke on the Nationalists after the unnatural alliance between coercive
\nconciliation and an Indian progressive party previous to the Surat Congress, \u2014 an alliance not then declared, but
\nsufficiently proved by the conduct and utterances of Sir Pherozshah Mehta
\nand Mr. Gokhale then and after. It is
\nevident, therefore, that if we accepted the Moderate constitution apart from
\nits utter illegality, we should be consenting to our own exclusion by an
\nelectoral device worthy of Lord Morley
\nhimself, even though the front door might be nominally open to us. Only an
\ninsignificant number of Nationalists would be able to qualify as delegates and
\nthe Revision Committee would be a Moderate Committee and the revision a mere
\nmodification of unessential details. The concession therefore was nugatory, as
\nillusory as the Reforms offered to us by bureaucratic benignity. On the other
\nhand, the Nationalists were expected to sign a creed which they could not
\nuphold as their own conscientious belief, to recognise an unconstitutional
\nconstitution and to leave the four resolutions to the chances of a Moderate
\nSubjects Committee and the possible prohibition of their amendments by a Mehta
\nor Malaviya.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

The Nationalist members of the Committee rejected these impossible
\ndemands and submitted proposals of their own on each of the three main points
\nat issue. They consented to accept the first Article of the Moderate
\nConstitution which declared the objects of the Congress to be self-government
\nand the acquisition of the rights of British citizenship; they refused to
\naccept the second Article which requires every representative elected by the
\npeople to subscribe personally to these objects as a precondition of entering
\nthe pandal as a delegate. They refused to
\naccept the Constitution as a Constitution, but they consented to accept it as a
\nset of provisional rules allowed by mutual agreement to govern Congress
\nproceedings until a real Constitution was passed next year, provided that the
\nrule limiting right of election to Associations of three years’ standing which
\naccepted the<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 320<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

creed, should be
\nmade inoperative by the same mutual agreement. They agreed not to press the
\nfour resolutions as a precondition of union, provided they received an
\nassurance that they should not be debarred from bringing them in the Subjects
\nCommittee and, if necessary, in the Congress itself. The Moderates rejected the
\nproposal; they demanded unconditional acceptance and subscription to the creed
\nas the indispensable basis of union. Yet the Nationalists had really conceded
\neverything which the other party could reasonably expect. They accepted a
\nlimited self-government as the object of the Congress, although they refused to
\naccept it as their own, they accepted the Moderate Constitution with the
\nexception of one subclause which meant the
\nexclusion of Nationalist delegates; and made
\nno farther stipulation that it should be changed in any way previous to being
\npassed as the real legal Constitution of the Congress;
\nthey consented to leave over the question of the four resolutions, reserving
\nonly their constitutional right to move them in Subjects Committee and in
\nCongress. We ask, could anything have been fairer, more generous, more
\nthoroughly pervaded by the desire to bring about unity even at the cost of
\nsubstantial, indeed immense concessions ?<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

Our attitude with regard to the creed has been consistent
\nthroughout. We accepted the Colonial self-government resolution at Calcutta in
\n1906 because we saw that it was the opinion of the majority. We accepted it at Pabna and Hughly
\nbecause it was the opinion of an influential minority whom we did not wish to
\nalienate. If we had been asked to subscribe to it as a creed or even as the
\nobjects of the Congress in 1906, we should have at once and emphatically
\nrefused. At Pabna the Moderates did not venture to demand any such subscription
\nfrom the delegates, they did not ask it at Hughly. They knew very well that the
\ndemand would have been indignantly repudiated by Bengal. We now go farther and
\nconsent to accept it as the objects of the Congress, to be only altered when
\nall India wishes to alter it, for that is the provision in the Moderate
\nConstitution. We propose to accept it and adhere to it in the same spirit,
\neither as the opinion of the majority or as a necessary concession to secure
\nthe adhesion of an influential minority. It is a political accommoda-<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 321<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

tion, nothing else. To consent to Article II, which is a clause of
\nexclusion limiting popular election, is a very different matter. The Moderate
\nargument was that it is not a creed we are asked to sign, but merely a
\ndeclaration of acceptance of the objects of the Congress and that it need not
\nin any way limit or modify our speech and
\naction except for the few hours spent in the Congress pandal.
\nApart from the very doubtful political honesty of such a distinction, we do not
\nbelieve that it is the view of the creed held in other parts of India and in
\npractice it could not work. The District Associations and the political
\nAssociations electing delegates to the Congress are expected by the Moderate
\nConstitution to subscribe to the Congress creed or statement of objects and,
\nif they utter or allow their prominent members to utter sentiments or pass
\nresolutions inconsistent with it, the Congress would have a right to feel
\nembarrassed and stigmatise the departure as double dealing. This is the reason
\nwhy we have always opposed the limitation of the aims or beliefs of the
\nCongress by any hard and fast rule. We would oppose it even if the creed were a
\ndeclaration of the Nationalist faith. Such a limitation deprives the Congress
\nof its free and representative character, it hampers aspiration and public
\nopinion, it puts a premium on political hypocrisy. Even if we allow the
\nargument of the Bengal Moderates, our fundamental objection to Article II is
\nnot removed. It is an exclusory clause, it
\nlimits the right of the people to elect any representative they choose, it sets
\nup an authority over the electorate in the same way as the exclusory clauses of
\nthe Government Reform Councils Regulations, it is a sort of Congress Test Act
\narbitrary and undemocratic. The true democratic principle is that the man
\nelected by the people must be recognised as a delegate, whatever his opinions.
\nWe shall always oppose any restriction of the freedom of election by the
\nGovernment; how can we consistently do so, if we recognise a restriction in a
\npopular assembly of our own making ? And if this principle of exclusion is once
\nadmitted, where is it to stop ? What
\nguarantees us against the future introduction of a new clause demanding the
\nsigning of a declaration renouncing Boycott and passive resistance as a
\nprecondition of entrance into the pandal ?<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 322<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

It will be seen therefore that from whatever point of view it is
\ntaken, the refusal to accept Article II of the Convention rules was not only
\nreasonable, but the Nationalists could not have taken any other course without
\ncommitting political and moral suicide. The reasonableness of our position on
\nthe two other points is self-evident and need not be argued. The refusal of
\nthese liberal concessions even by the Bengal Moderates shows that the holding
\nof an united Congress is impossible. The argument that the Convention cannot
\naccept such terms, only shows that the Convention can never be the basis of an
\nunited Congress and that, while it exists, an united Congress is out of the
\nquestion. Before, therefore, any farther steps can be taken in that direction,
\nwe must await the collapse of the Convention which we believe to be not far
\ndistant. The Nationalist Party have stated the terms on which alone they will
\nconsent to a compromise, and they will not lower them, neither will they renew
\nnegotiations until either the Convention is dead and buried or the Moderate
\nleaders give up their attachment to the Convention creed and constitution.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 323<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n
\nHOME<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Creed and Constitution   THE attempt to bring about the unity of the two parties in Bengal as a preliminary to the holding of an…<\/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-1100","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\/1100","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=1100"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1100\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1100"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1100"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1100"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}