{"id":332,"date":"2013-07-13T01:27:22","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:27:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=332"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:27:22","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:27:22","slug":"076-morleyism-analysed-vol-01-bande-mataram-volume-01","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/01-sabcl\/01-bande-mataram-volume-01\/076-morleyism-analysed-vol-01-bande-mataram-volume-01","title":{"rendered":"-076_Morleyism Analysed.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n

\n
\n
\nMorleyism Analysed<\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n                       
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>T<\/font><\/span><\/b>HE<\/b>
\nfuller reports of Mr. Morley’s speech to hand by mail do not in any essential
\npoint alter the impression that was produced by Reuter<\/i>\u2019s <\/i>summary. The
\nwhole of the speech turns upon a single sentence as its pivot \u2014 the statement
\nthat British rule will continue, ought to continue and must continue. Mr. Morley
\ndoes not say forever, but that is understood. It follows that if the continuance
\nof British rule on any terms is the fundamental necessity, any and every means
\nused for its preservation is legitimate. Compared with that supreme necessity
\njustice does not matter, humanity does not matter, truth does not matter,
\nmorality may be trampled on, the laws of God may be defied. The principles of
\nLiberalism, though they may have been
\nprofessed a thousand times over, must be discarded by the English rulers of
\nIndia as inapplicable to a country of \u201c300 millions of people, composite,
\nheterogeneous, of different races with different histories and different
\nfaiths". All these things weigh as dust in the balance against the one
\nsupreme necessity. If the continuance of British rule seems to be threatened by
\nany popular activity, however legitimate, resort must be had to any weapon, no
\nmatter of what nature, in order to put down that activity. Reasons of State,
\n"the tyrant’s plea, necessity", must be held to be of supreme
\nauthority and to override all other considerations. Mr. Morley admits that the
\nplea is a dangerous one, but sedition is still more dangerous. The danger of the
\nreason of State is that it can cover and will inevitably be stretched to cover
\nthe repetition of "dangers, mischiefs and iniquities in our olden history
\nand, perhaps, in our present history", in other words Mr. Morley’s
\nreasoning in favour of the present "iniquities" in India, can equally
\nwell be used to justify every utmost atrocity, cruelty, vileness with which
\ntyrants ancient or modern have attempted to put down opposition to their
\nsovereign will. Wholesale deportation, arbitrary imprisonment, massacre,
\noutrage, police anarchy, torture of<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage-447<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nprisoners,
\nevery familiar feature of Russian repression, can be brought under the head of
\nweapons necessary to combat sedition and can be justified by the plea of State
\nnecessity. This is the danger of reason of State, a danger that recent events in
\nIndia and especially current events in the Punjab show to be by no means so
\nremote as we might have some months ago imagined. But the danger of sedition is
\nthe cessation of British rule. And in the opinion of Mr. Morley, supported by an
\nalmost unanimous concensus of British opinion, the re-enactment by a British
\ngovernment of the iniquities and atrocities of ancient and modern tyranny are
\npreferable to the cessation of British rule; it is better to take the risk of
\nthese than to take the risk of losing the absolute control of Britain over
\nIndia. This is Mr. Morley’s argument, approved by Conservative and Radical alike….
\nNo,
\nwe are not distorting or exaggerating. There it is, plump and plain, in the
\nspeech of the great British Radical, the Liberal philosopher, the panegyrist of
\nBurke and Gladstone. It is the last word of England to India on the great issue
\nof Indian self-government.<\/font><\/p>\n


\n           
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>What does Mr. Morley mean by British rule? Not the British connexion, not
\nthe continuance of India as a self-governing unit in a federation of free
\npeoples which shall be called the British Empire. No, Mr. Morley is quite as
\nhostile to the Moderate ideal of self-government on colonial lines, modified
\nSwaraj, as to the Nationalist ideal of Swaraj, pure and simple. The educated
\nminority in India have the presumption to think themselves capable of working
\nthe government of the country as smoothly as the heaven-born Briton himself, but
\nMr. Morley is persuaded that they would not work it for a week. This is final.
\nIf after a hundred years of English education and no inconsiderable training in
\nthe subordinate conduct of the bureaucratic machinery of government, the
\neducated class are not fit to be entrusted even by gradual stages with the
\nsupreme government of Indian affairs, then they will never be fit. And we must
\nremember that the policy of the rulers henceforth will be to control and
\nrestrict and not to encourage or promote the spread of education of the higher
\nsort. From our own point of view, we may put it more strongly and say that if a
\nhundred years of dependence and foreign control have so immensely impaired that
\ngoverning capa-<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage-448<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\ncity
\nof the Indian races which they showed with such splendid
\n<\/span>results for the
\nlast three thousand years, then another century <\/span>will
\nabsolutely and for ever destroy it. Mr. Morley is therefore
\n<\/span>logically
\njustified in reiterating his conviction that personal and <\/span>absolute
\nforeign control must be the leading feature of Indian administration to the very
\nend of time. This is what Mr. Morley means by the continuance of British rule,
\nhe means the continuance of a personal and absolute British control pervading
\nthe administration of affairs in every department, in other words, a
\nbureaucratic despotism strongly flavoured by the independent personal
\nomnipotence of local governors and local officials. The problem which former
\nBritish statesmen professed to have before them was the problem of gradually
\ntraining and associating the Indians in an European system of government until
\nthey were fit to take over absolute control of affairs and allow their patrons
\nand protectors to withdraw. This problem does not any longer trouble the peace
\nof British statesmen; on the contrary, it is definitely and forever disclaimed
\nand put aside as a chimera \u2014
\n<\/span>or a pretence.
\nBritish rule in India will continue, ought to con<\/span>tinue
\nand must continue. What then is the problem which is troubling Mr. Morley? The
\nproblem is "the difficulty of combining personal government in our
\ndependency with the rights of free speech and free meeting". Personal
\ngovernment, absolute government, despotism, that is the supreme necessity which
\nmust be continued for ever even at the sacrifice of morality, justice and every
\nother consideration. Subject to that necessity Mr. Morley proposes to allow a
\ncertain amount of free speech if that be possible. Free speech was harmless as
\nlong as the Indian people had not set their heart on self-government; but now
\nthat they have resolved to have nothing short of self-government, free speech
\nmeans seditious speech, and sedition is not consistent with the continuance of
\nthe absolute and personal British control. How then can free speech and British
\ndespotism be combined? How then can fire and water occupy the same space? That
\nis the problem, which Mr. Morley refuses to believe insoluble, and he solves it
\nby proclaiming the areas where free speech has been chiefly employed, \u2014 and by
\nestablishing an Advisory Council of Notables. <\/font>\n<\/p>\n

\n              It may be asked, if the
\ncontinuance of absolute government<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/h3>\n

\nPage-449<\/font><\/span><\/h3>\n
\n

\nis
\nthe whole policy of British statesmanship, why does Mr. Morley trouble himself
\nabout free speech at all or propose any reforms? That question can be easily
\nanswered by a consideration of the suggested reforms.
\nThe first of these reforms
\nis a Council of Notables. Mr. Morley has told us what is the object of this
\nbody; it is to be a sort of medium of communication between the government and
\nthe people. Of course Mr. Morley is quite mistaken in supposing that such a body
\ncan really serve the object he has in view, but we are concerned for the present
\nnot with the sufficiency of the means he is devising for his object, but with
\nthe object itself. The second reform is an expansion of the Legislative Councils
\nand greater facilities to the elected members for the expression of their views;
\nin other words the object of the expanded Legislative Councils is to keep the
\nGovernment in India in touch with the views of the educated class. The third
\nreform is the admission of <\/i>Indian members to the India Council, and it is
\nobvious that here again the object is that these Indian members should keep the
\nGovernment in England in touch with the opinions of educated India, just as the
\nelected members of the Legislative Council are to keep the Government in India
\nin touch with the same opinion. The fourth reform is the decentralisation of the
\nadministration so that each local official may become an independent local
\ndespot. The object is clearly defined; first, to give him greater opportunities
\nof being in touch with the people, secondly, to give him a greater power of
\npersonal despotic control within his own jurisdiction unhampered by the
\ninterference of higher authorities. All the reforms have one single object, one
\ngoverning idea, \u2014 an absolute personal despotic British control in touch with
\nthe people<\/i>. <\/i>That is Mr. Morley’s policy.
\n       
\nThe object of keeping in touch with the people and knowing their opinions is not
\nto redress their grievances, still less to allow their opinions any control over
\nthe administration. The object is quite different. A despotism out of touch with
\nthe people is a despotism continually in danger, ignorant of the currents of
\nopinion, ignorant of the half-visible activities among its subjects, ignorant of
\nthe perils gathering in the vast obscurity, it must one day be suddenly
\nsurprised and perhaps overthrown by the un-<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage-450<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nforeseen
\noutburst of activities and dangers it had not anticipated. It is in order to
\navoid these dangers that Mr. Morley wishes to employ various means of keeping in
\ntouch with public opinion and its manifestations. He talks in his speech of the
\nnecessity of the rulers putting themselves in the skins of the ruled, in other
\nwords, of thoroughly understanding their thoughts, feelings and point of view.
\nThis does not mean that they shall rule India according to the sentiments, views
\nand wishes of the Indian people. The whole conduct of Mr. Morley and the whole
\ntrend of his utterances shows that he means the opinions of the Government to
\nprevail without regard to Indian opinions and sentiments. The rulers are to
\nunderstand the ruled so that they may know how their measures are likely to
\naffect the minds of the latter, how opposition can best be persuaded or Samjaoed
\ninto quiescence and how, if persuasion is useless, it can most swiftly and
\nsuccessfully be crushed. Through the Council of Notables, the Legislative
\nCouncils and the Indian members of the India Council, the Government will come
\nto know the ideas, views, and feelings of the people; through the two former
\nbodies they will try to present unpopular measures in such a way as to coax,
\ncajole, delude or intimidate public opinion into a quiet acceptance. If they
\ncannot do this, then through the decentralised local officers they can keep in
\ntouch with the popular temper, learn its manifestations and activities and
\nsuccessfully and promptly put down opposition by local measures, if possible,
\notherwise by imperial rescripts, laws and ordinances and every possible weapon
\nof despotic repression.<\/font><\/p>\n


\n           
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>We have analysed Mr. Morley’s speech at length, because people in India
\nhave not the habit of following the turns of British parliamentary eloquence or
\nreading between the lines of the speech of a Cabinet Minister. They are
\ntherefore likely to miss its true bearings and fail to understand the policy it
\nenunciates. Read by an eye accustomed to the reservations and implications by
\nwhich a British Minister makes himself intelligible without committing himself
\nunnecessarily, Mr. Morley’s speech is an admirably clear, connected, logical
\nand, let us add, unusually and amazingly frank expression of a very straightforward and coherent policy. To maintain in India an absolute<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage-451<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nrule
\nas rigid as any Czar’s, to keep that rule in close touch with the currents of
\nIndian sentiment, opinion and activity and to crush any active opposition by an
\nimmediate resort to the ordinary weapons of despotism, ordinances, deportations,
\nprosecutions and a swift and ruthless terrorism, this is Morleyism as explained
\nby its author.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\nPolitical
\nor Non-political<\/font><\/a><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n


\n <\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\n       
\nWe are glad to see that both at Jessore and Pabna the foolish idea of
\nexcluding politics from a political conference has been entirely abandoned. The
\nattempt to parcel off our national progress into water-tight compartments, the
\nattempts especially to put off political activity and political development to a
\nfar-distant area is, when not dictated by weakness or cowardice, a narrow,
\none-sided and short-sighted attempt. In one sense everything that concerns the
\nwelfare of the polis<\/i>, <\/i>the state or community is political. Education,
\nsocial reconstruction, sanitation, industrial expansion, all these are a
\nnecessary part of politics; but the most important part of all is that to which
\nthe term politics is especially applied, the organisation of the state and its
\nindependence; for on these all the others depend. Just as an organism must first
\nlive and then attend to other wants and must therefore give the highest
\nimportance to the preservation of life, so also a state or nation must first win
\nor maintain an organised independence, otherwise it will find itself baffled in
\nall its attempts to satisfy its other wants. Swadeshi, Boycott, Arbitration,
\nNational Education are all doomed to failure if pursued separately and for their
\nown sake; but as part of a single co-ordinated attempt to attain an organised
\nindependence, they are the necessity of the present time. They are merely
\ncomponent parts of Swaraj, which is made of all of them put together and
\nharmonised into a single whole. It is mere ostrich politics to pretend to give
\nup Swaraj, and confine oneself to its parts for their own sake. By such an
\nattempt we may succeed in deceiving ourselves, we shall certainly not deceive
\nanybody else.<\/font><\/p>\n


\nBande Mataram<\/i>,
\n<\/i> <\/font>June 25, 1907<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/h3>\n

\nPage-452<\/font><\/span><\/h3>\n
\n


\nThe "Statesman" on Mr. Chowdhuri<\/a><\/h4>\n

\n <\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe
\nStatesman <\/i>is naturally delighted with Mr. A. Chowdhuri’s declaration in
\nfavour of leaving politics out of our programme. Here at least, cries the Friend
\nof India, is a leader after our own heart. No doubt it would be extremely
\nconvenient for the Friend of India and its countrymen if Indians did give up
\ntheir political aspirations and leave Anglo-India in undisputed possession of
\nthe field, but we do not think the friendly yearnings of the Statesman <\/i>are
\nlikely to be gratified. Mr. Chowdhuri’s message fell flat even in his own Pabna.
\nAt the same time our contemporary seems hardly to have taken the trouble to
\nunderstand the speech of his new prot\u00e9g\u00e9. He fastens on the powerful indictment
\nof the present system of education which is the most striking portion of Mr.
\nChowdhuri’s address, and warmly approves of it. But he mildly rebukes the
\nspeaker for pinning his hopes on the new system of National Education which is
\ngradually spreading throughout Bengal and advises him to transfer his affections
\nto the old University. National Education will be a failure, says the
\nChowringhee prophet; Indians are too selfish and unpatriotic to make it a
\nsuccess. What then is to be done? Why, give up agitating for political reform
\nsince our agitation is so obviously a failure and begin agitating for
\neducational reform. It is a luminous idea. After having wasted a century begging
\nthe British government to reform their administration, we are to waste another
\ncentury begging them to
\nreform their educational system, <\/span>
\n\u2014<\/span>
\nwith equal futility. The <\/span>Government cannot
\ngive us a reformed and modern system of education for obvious reasons. It would
\nmean the growth of highly-trained specialists who would immediately demand to be
\nemployed in preference to aliens, and either the bread of so many Europeans
\nwould be taken out of their mouths or there would be a fresh cause of
\ndiscontent. It would equip Indians to oust the white man from his lucrative
\nmonopoly of commerce and trade and kill British trade in India by the
\ndevelopment of indigenous industries. It would mean the transformation of our
\npeople into a highly-trained and well-equipped nation who would certainly not
\nsubmit to Mr. Morley’s personal and absolute<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/h3>\n

\nPage-453<\/font><\/span><\/h3>\n
\n

\nBritish
\ncontrol. Anything short of this would not meet Mr. Chowdhuri’s ideal; but
\nanything like this the bureaucracy could not give us without committing suicide.
\nThe Statesman <\/i>has not, as we said, cared to understand Mr. Chowdhuri. He
\nis for dropping politics, but he is also for self-help and denounces mendicancy.
\nWe fear the Statesman <\/i>will have to look farther for its ideal Bengali
\nleader. Why not try Sankharitola?<\/font><\/p>\n


\nBande Mataram<\/i>,
\n<\/i> <\/font>June 26, 1907<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/h3>\n

\nPage-454<\/font><\/span><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Morleyism Analysed                           THE fuller reports of Mr. Morley’s speech to hand by mail do not in any essential point alter the impression that…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-332","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-01-bande-mataram-volume-01","wpcat-8-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/332","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=332"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/332\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=332"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=332"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=332"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}