{"id":2068,"date":"2013-07-13T01:39:14","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:39:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=2068"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:39:14","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:39:14","slug":"68-creed-and-constitution-vol-08-karmayogin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/03-cwsa\/08-karmayogin\/68-creed-and-constitution-vol-08-karmayogin","title":{"rendered":"-68_Creed and Constitution.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\n\n
\n

\n\t\t\tCreed and Constitution <\/font>\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tTHE ATTEMPT to bring about the unity of the two
\n\t\t\tparties in Bengal as a preliminary to the holding of a United
\n\t\t\tCongress has split on the twin rocks of creed and constitution. We will place before the country as succinctly as possible the issues which were posited during the negotiations and
\n\t\t\tstate clearly the Nationalist attitude, leaving it to Bengal to
\n\t\t\tjudge between us and the upholders of the Convention’s creed and
\n\t\t\tconstitution. We ask our countrymen to consider whether the
\n\t\t\tconcessions we made were not large and substantial and the single concession offered to us worthless and nugatory,
\n\t\t\twhether the reservations we made were not justifiable and necessary,
\n\t\t\texcept on the view that principles are of no value in politics, and,
\n\t\t\tif they come to the conclusion that the proposals we made were fair and moderate, we ask them to absolve us of all
\n\t\t\tresponsibility for the failure of the negotiations. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tThe terms offered by the Moderate party were based on
\n\t\t\ta compromise framed at the
\nAmrita Bazar <\/i>Office last year which has since been rejected by the Moderates in one of its
\n\t\t\tmost important features, namely, the insistence on the acceptance of
\n\t\t\tthe four Calcutta resolutions as an indispensable condition of union. The Moderate proposal was that the Nationalists
\n\t\t\tshould sign the creed unconditionally and accept the Conventionist constitution, but that the Bombay leaders should be asked
\n\t\t\tto consent to the formation of a Committee this year at Lahore to revise the Constitution and pass it as revised at the next session. The terms of the revision would naturally be left
\n\t\t\tto that Committee and if it were equally composed of Nationalists and Moderates, there would have been some value in the concession. But by a rule of the Moderate constitution all Associations not of three years’ standing would be debarred from sending delegates. The formation of the Nationalists into<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tPage-367<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\ta distinct party was only completed in the year 1906, that is precisely three years ago, and the rule was evidently framed in order to help in making impossible the election of Nationalist delegates. At the time the rule was framed there was not and could not be any association of our party with the
\n\t\t\trequisite qualification, and such bodies as would have been
\n\t\t\tqualified now, have mostly perished in the storm of repression which
\n\t\t\tbroke on the Nationalists after the unnatural alliance between
\n\t\t\tcoercive conciliation and an Indian progressive party previous to the Surat Congress,
\n\t\t\t\u2013an alliance not then declared, but sufficiently proved by the conduct and utterances of Sir Pherozshah Mehta and Mr. Gokhale then and after. It is evident,
\n\t\t\ttherefore, that if we accepted the Moderate constitution apart from
\n\t\t\tits utter illegality, we should be consenting to our own exclusion
\n\t\t\tby an electoral device worthy of Lord Morley himself, even though the front door might be nominally open to us. Only
\n\t\t\tan insignificant number of Nationalists would be able to qualify as delegates and the Revision Committee would be a
\n\t\t\tModerate Committee and the revision a mere modification of
\n\t\t\tunessential details. The concession therefore was nugatory, as illusory as
\n\t\t\tthe Reforms offered to us by bureaucratic benignity. On the other
\n\t\t\thand, the Nationalists were expected to sign a creed which they
\n\t\t\tcould not uphold as their own conscientious belief, to recognise an unconstitutional constitution and to leave the four resolutions to the chances of a Moderate Subjects Committee
\n\t\t\tand the possible prohibition of their amendments by a Mehta or Malaviya. <\/font>\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tThe Nationalist members of the Committee rejected
\n\t\t\tthese impossible demands and submitted proposals of their own on each of the three main points at issue. They consented to
\n\t\t\taccept the first Article of the Moderate Constitution which declared
\n\t\t\tthe objects of the Congress to be self-government and the acquisition of the rights of British citizenship; they refused to
\n\t\t\taccept the second Article which requires every representative
\n\t\t\telected by the people to subscribe personally to these objects as a pre-condition of entering the pandal as a delegate. They refused
\n\t\t\tto accept the Constitution as a Constitution, but they consented<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tPage-368<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\tto accept it as a set of provisional rules allowed by
\n\t\t\tmutual agreement to govern Congress proceedings until a real Constitution was passed next year, provided that the rule limiting
\n\t\t\tthe right of election to Associations of three years’ standing which
\n\t\t\taccepted the creed, should be made inoperative by the same mutual agreement. They agreed not to press the four
\n\t\t\tresolutions as a precondition of union, provided they received an
\n\t\t\tassurance that they should not be debarred from bringing them in the
\n\t\t\tSubjects Committee and, if necessary, in the Congress itself. The
\n\t\t\tModerates rejected the proposal; they demanded unconditional
\n\t\t\tacceptance and subscription to the creed as the indispensable basis of union. Yet the Nationalists had really conceded everything which the other party could reasonably expect.
\n\t\t\tThey accepted a limited self-government as the object of the
\n\t\t\tCongress, although they refused to accept it as their own, they
\n\t\t\taccepted the Moderate Constitution with the exception of one subclause which meant the exclusion of Nationalist delegates; and made
\n\t\t\tno farther stipulation that it should be changed in any way previous
\n\t\t\tto being passed as the real legal Constitution of the Congress; they consented to leave over the question of the four
\n\t\t\tresolutions, reserving only their constitutional right to move them in
\n\t\t\tSubjects Committee and in Congress. We ask, could anything have been
\n\t\t\tfairer, more generous, more thoroughly pervaded by the desire to
\n\t\t\tbring about unity even at the cost of substantial, indeed immense concessions? <\/font>\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tOur attitude with regard to the creed has been
\n\t\t\tconsistent throughout. We accepted the Colonial self-government resolution at Calcutta in 1906 because we saw that it was the
\n\t\t\topinion of the majority. We accepted it at Pabna and Hughly because
\n\t\t\tit was the opinion of an influential minority whom we did not wish
\n\t\t\tto alienate. If we had been asked to subscribe to it as a creed or
\n\t\t\teven as the objects of the Congress in 1906, we should have at once and emphatically refused. At Pabna the Moderates did
\n\t\t\tnot venture to demand any such subscription from the delegates, they did not ask it at Hughly. They knew very well that
\n\t\t\tthe demand would have been indignantly repudiated by Bengal. We now go farther and consent to accept it as the objects of<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tPage-369<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\tthe Congress, to be only altered when all India wishes to
\n\t\t\talter it, for that is the provision in the Moderate Constitution. We
\n\t\t\tpropose to accept it and adhere to it in the same spirit, either as the opinion of the majority or as a necessary concession
\n\t\t\tto secure the adhesion of an influential minority. It is a political
\n\t\t\taccommodation, nothing else. To consent to Article II, which is a clause of exclusion limiting popular election, is a very
\n\t\t\tdifferent matter. The Moderate argument was that it is not a creed we
\n\t\t\tare asked to sign, but merely a declaration of acceptance of the
\n\t\t\tobjects of the Congress and that it need not in any way limit or modify our speech and action except for the few hours
\n\t\t\tspent in the Congress pandal. Apart from the very doubtful political
\n\t\t\thonesty of such a distinction, we do not believe that it is the view of the creed held in other parts of India and in
\n\t\t\tpractice it could not work. The District Associations and the
\n\t\t\tpolitical Associations electing delegates to the Congress are expected
\n\t\t\tby the Moderate Constitution to subscribe to the Congress creed or
\n\t\t\tstatement of objects and, if they utter or allow their prominent
\n\t\t\tmembers to utter sentiments or pass resolutions inconsistent with it, the Congress would have a right to feel
\n\t\t\tembarrassed and stigmatise the departure as double dealing. This is the
\n\t\t\treason why we have always opposed the limitation of the aims or
\n\t\t\tbeliefs of the Congress by any hard and fast rule. We would oppose
\n\t\t\tit even if the creed were a declaration of the Nationalist faith.
\n\t\t\tSuch a limitation deprives the Congress of its free and
\n\t\t\trepresentative character, it hampers aspiration and public opinion, it puts
\n\t\t\ta premium on political hypocrisy. Even if we allow the argument of the Bengal Moderates, our fundamental objection to Article II is not removed. It is an exclusory clause, it limits the right
\n\t\t\tof the people to elect any representative they choose, it sets up an
\n\t\t\tauthority over the electorate in the same way as the exclusory
\n\t\t\tclauses of the Government Reform Councils Regulations, it is a sort of Congress Test Act arbitrary and undemocratic. The true democratic principle is that the man elected by the people
\n\t\t\tmust be recognised as a delegate, whatever his opinions. We shall
\n\t\t\talways oppose any restriction of the freedom of election by the
\n\t\t\tGovernment; how can we consistently do so, if we recognise<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tPage-370<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\ta restriction in a popular assembly of our own making?
\n\t\t\tAnd if this principle of exclusion is once admitted, where is it to
\n\t\t\tstop? What guarantees us against the future introduction of anew clause demanding the signing of a declaration
\n\t\t\trenouncing Boycott and passive resistance as a precondition of entrance
\n\t\t\tinto the pandal? <\/font><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tIt will be seen therefore that from whatever point of view
\n\t\t\tit is taken, the refusal to accept Article II of the Convention
\n\t\t\trules was not only reasonable, but the Nationalists could not have
\n\t\t\ttaken any other course without committing political and moral
\n\t\t\tsuicide. The reasonableness of our position on the two other points is self-evident and need not be argued. The refusal of
\n\t\t\tthese liberal concessions even by the Bengal Moderates shows that
\n\t\t\tthe holding of a united Congress is impossible. The argument that
\n\t\t\tthe Convention cannot accept such terms, only shows that the
\n\t\t\tConvention can never be the basis of a united Congress and that,
\n\t\t\twhile it exists, a united Congress is out of the question. Before,
\n\t\t\ttherefore, any farther steps can be taken in that direction, we must await the collapse of the Convention which we believe to be not far distant. The Nationalist party have stated the
\n\t\t\tterms on which alone they will consent to a compromise, and they
\n\t\t\twill not lower them, neither will they renew negotiations until
\n\t\t\teither the Convention is dead and buried or the Moderate leaders
\n\t\t\tgive up their attachment to the Convention creed and constitution.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tPage-371<\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\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 a…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[44],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2068","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-08-karmayogin","wpcat-44-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2068","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=2068"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2068\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2068"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2068"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2068"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}