{"id":425,"date":"2013-07-13T01:27:57","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:27:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=425"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:27:57","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:27:57","slug":"098-the-stateman-in-retreat-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\/098-the-stateman-in-retreat-vol-01-bande-mataram-volume-01","title":{"rendered":"-098_The Stateman in Retreat.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n


\nThe \u201cStatesman\u201d in Retreat<\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n          
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>T<\/font><\/span><\/b>HE<\/b>
\nstrong censures which the Statesman<\/i>‘s <\/i>article on the Bande Mataram <\/i>Case
\nhas called forth from the Bengali Press in Calcutta, have forced that journal to
\nenter into some explanation of its conduct. While professing to stand by every
\nword it had written, it manages under cover of the plea that it has been
\nmisunderstood, to unsay much that it had said. The article was on the face of it
\na malignant attack on the Bande Mataram<\/i>, <\/i>an attempt to create the
\nimpression that this paper was either a journal managed on a dishonest,
\ndisreputable and impossible principle or else that its staff were a gang of
\nliars and cowards with an Editor who made a false or practically false defence
\nin order to avoid the responsibility for his political propaganda. We were told
\nthat from this dilemma there was no possible escape. The Statesman <\/i>has
\nnow considerably altered its tone. In order that we may not be accused of wilfully misinterpreting our very Liberal contemporary, we will give his
\nexplanation of his own meaning in his own words and answer him point by point.
\n"We maintained," he says, "that there had been in essence a
\nmiscarriage of justice in the Bande Mataram <\/i>Case, since the trial had
\nresulted in the conviction of the Printer, whereas the real offender \u2014 the
\nauthor of the article or articles complained of \u2014 was not brought to book. We
\npointed out in the next place, that in England the person really responsible for
\nthe articles could readily have been found, for no attempt would have been made
\nto evade the issue on the divided liability principle adopted in the Bande
\nMataram <\/i>office, still less to make a scapegoat of an ignorant workman. We
\nmaintained, lastly, that unless every public journal had a responsible head of
\nsome sort, the liberty of the Press would degenerate into a licence under which
\nno institution of organised society, no man’s reputation would be safe." We
\ndo not for a moment deny that there was a very serious miscarriage of justice in
\nthe Bande Mataram <\/i>Case, but we are cer-<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage-551<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\ntainly
\nastonished at the malignity of the Statesman <\/i>in trying to fasten the
\nresponsibility for the Printer’s conviction on the Bande Mataram <\/i>or on
\nthe other accused. It writes as if it were we who took out a warrant against the
\nPrinter, knowing him to be nothing but an ignorant workman, or who sentenced him
\nto three months’ rigorous imprisonment in spite of the evidence that he knew
\nnothing of the matter and could not have had any criminal knowledge or
\nintention, or as if we had asked the Printer to take any responsibility upon
\nhimself for the articles. Does the Friend of India find anywhere in the records
\nof the case or out of them either that any of the accused tried to shield
\nhimself by putting the responsibility on the Printer? The blame for the
\nmiscarriage of justice must rest on the unjust British law which makes an
\nignorant workman responsible, on the bureaucrats who sanctioned his prosecution
\nand on the Magistrate who sentenced him, and the attempt to fasten it on our
\nshoulders is as grotesque as it is malicious. The Statesman <\/i>is, farther,
\nmuch exercised because the real author of the offending article has escaped
\npunishment, but this is not a calamity over which we can affect to be greatly
\ngrieved. After all, miscarriages of justice, whether in the shape of the
\nconviction of innocent Indians or the immunity from punishment of European
\ncriminals, are not so rare in this country
\nthat society will be shattered to pieces because the writer of a chance letter
\ndisagreeable to the sacred feelings of the bureaucracy, has not been sent to
\nturn the oil-mill for a couple of years. "In England the person really
\nresponsible for the article could readily have been found." If the real
\nwriter is meant, we deny this altogether. In England it would be absolutely
\nimpossible to discover the true writer of an unsigned article, for it is not
\nconsidered binding on him to come forward even if another suffers for his
\noffence or his indiscretion; and when the Statesman <\/i>claims a chivalrous
\nsense of honour for English writers, political or other, and asserts that they
\nalways come forward to claim their handiwork, it is trading on the ignorance of
\nEnglish life which is prevalent in this country. If, on the other hand, the
\nEditor is meant, we would advise our contemporary to study the history of the
\nEnglish Press more minutely. He will find that English editors have not always
\nbeen so enamoured of legal penalties<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage-552<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nas
\nto forego any opportunity of evading responsibility which the law allowed them.
\nWe will admit that ordinarily in England there is a single responsible head of
\nsome kind, though he is not always the writer of the articles, but this is not
\nthe case in every country nor with every newspaper, and we cannot admit that any
\nsuch arrangement is necessary in the interests of society. When the Statesman
\n<\/i>says that no man’s reputation is safe unless every paper has its one
\nresponsible head, it is talking and knows that it is talking pure nonsense. A
\nman who thinks himself libelled has always his remedy in civil law and it cannot
\nmatter to him whether he gets his damages from the actual writer of the
\nlibellous matter or from the proprietor or from a company or syndicate owning
\nthe paper. Was Mr. Lever’s reputation unsafe because his damages were paid by
\nthe Harmsworth Trust and not by the actual libeller? If the proprietor happens
\nto be a corporate body, the aggrieved person is no doubt deprived of the
\nvindictive pleasure of sending his critic to prison, but we hardly think it can
\nbe said that society is mortally wounded by his loss. But of course what the Statesman
\n<\/i>is really troubled about is the safety of the bureaucratic groups who
\nadminister the country at present and whom it dignifies and disguises by
\ndescribing as ‘"institutions of organised society". This anxiety of
\nthe Statesman<\/i>‘s <\/i>is rather humorous. The bureaucracy has armed itself with
\nsuch liberal powers of repression that a journalist attacking it is like a man
\nwith no better weapon than a pebble assailing a Goliath panoplied from head to
\nfoot, armed with a repeating rifle and supported by howitzers and maxim guns.
\nFor a backer of the giant to complain because the unarmed assailant throws his
\npebble from behind a bush or wall is, to say the least of it, a trifle
\nincongruous.<\/font><\/p>\n


\n           
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>The gravamen of the Statesman<\/i>‘s <\/i>charge, however, lies in the
\nquestion it triumphantly posits at the end of its rejoinder as a final settler
\nfor its critics. The impugned "articles in the Bande Mataram <\/i>must
\nhave been written by someone; is it courageous and honourable conduct on the
\npart of their unknown author, this precious ‘patriot’, that he should elect to
\nremain in hiding and let a poor unfortunate Printer go to jail in place of
\nhimself?" And our contemporary asks its critics either to<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage-553<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\naffirm
\nthat it is right for a journalist to allow an innocent man to suffer in his
\nplace, \u2014 or else be silent. We admit our contemporary’s luminous suggestion
\nthat someone must have written the article "Politics for Indians" and
\nthe better to clear up the confusion of his ideas we will add that the someone
\nmust have been either a member of the staff or an outside correspondent. The
\nevidence showed that he must have been the latter, and, if so, his conduct in
\nnot coming forward was in accordance with those traditions of English journalism
\nby which the Statesman <\/i>sets such store. It may not have been ethically
\nthe most heroic or exalted conduct possible, but it does not lie in the mouth of
\nan Englishman to question it. And we presume that the Statesman <\/i>will not
\nseriously suggest that it was our duty, even if we had recorded the name, to
\npeach against a correspondent in order to save our own man, or that such a
\nbetrayal would have been either courageous or honourable. If, on the other hand,
\nthe real writer were a journalist on the staff, he must have been someone other
\nthan Aurobindo Ghose to whom no one in his senses would attribute such a
\nhalf-baked effusion. He would then be one who was not accused and could only
\ntake the responsibility by giving evidence against himself as a witness for the
\ndefence. No Englishman in a similar situation would have done it unless actually
\nput in the witness box, but for an Indian patriot, we admit, it would have been
\nthe natural course if the Printer could have been saved by his self-devotion,
\nbut it is perfectly obvious that the Printer would still have been liable under
\nthe statute and got his three months. The imputation made by the Statesman <\/i>is
\nnot true in fact, as it was an outside contributor who wrote the article, but
\neven were it otherwise, it is absurd in theory. It was the bureaucracy and the
\nMagistrate who made a scapegoat of the Printer and not the Bande Mataram <\/i>or
\nany one on its staff. The Statesman <\/i>is intelligent enough to understand
\nthis without having it pointed out and malice alone prompted its dishonest
\nattempt to discredit us.<\/font><\/p>\n


\nBande Mataram<\/i>,
\n<\/i> <\/font> September 28, 1907<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-554<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n


\nTrue Swadeshi<\/a><\/font><\/h2>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nThe
\nTimes of India <\/i>like other Anglo-Indian journals of its class loses no
\nopportunity for discrediting the Nationalist movement in Bengal. In the issue to
\nhand it has an appreciative leader on the New Iron Industry initiated by the
\nlate Mr. J. N. Tata and now placed on a sound business footing as a Joint Stock
\nconcern with a handsome capital subscribed by the people of India. The Times <\/i>has
\nbeen constrained to admit that Indian capital is no longer shy and the spirit of
\nenterprise too is much in evidence. The Times <\/i>would not be itself if it
\nomitted to mention that the Government has been doing its best to help the new
\nindustry thus giving a proof of its substantial sympathy with the true Swadeshi.
\nBut the sting is in the tail. While praising the public spirit and enterprise of
\nBombay, it concludes with the customary fling at Bengal where agitators are
\nabsorbed in mouthing sedition in the Beadon Square. The Times <\/i>should
\nremember that but for the dissemination of so-called sedition in the Beadon
\nSquare the
\nrecent striking industrial activity of Bombay as evidenced in <\/span>the
\nerection of new mills and the addition of new looms would hardly have been
\npossible. The impartial observer must also admit that Bengal is also waking up
\nto her industrial needs. The "true" Swadeshi of the Times <\/i>draws
\nits vitality from the larger Swadeshi which Bengal has made its own.<\/font><\/p>\n


\nBande Mataram<\/i>,
\n<\/i> <\/font> October 4, 1907<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/font> <\/font>
\n
\n
\nNovel Ways to Peace<\/a><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nWe
\nlearn from the Empire <\/i>that on Wednesday evening the Paharawallas got
\ncompletely out of hand and that a number of
\nthem
\nafterwards traversed the streets indulging in looting, des<\/span>truction
\nof property and assault. We are farther told by our contemporary that the moment
\nthe peace was broken, the Budmash element asserted itself. And the Empire <\/i>winds
\nup with a genial and smiling prophecy to the effect that the atmosphere will be
\nmore or less disturbed for a month (that is till the Puja is over and the
\nEuropean merchants have been able to get their con-<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage-555<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nsignments
\nthrough) and there will be considerable bloodletting over the business; at the
\nend of that period, we are told, the relations between the Government and the
\npeople, especially the Extremists, will be substantially improved, because the
\nlatter will have fully realised by then what Calcutta would be like if the
\nBritish Government were actually "overthrown". We rather fancy the
\nEmpire <\/i>has <\/i>carefully forgotten to include two very important and indeed essential
\nconsiderations in its amiable prosings on the orgy of hooliganism and police
\noutrage to which the unarmed Bengalis have been subjected in the interests of
\nforeign trade. The first is that if the present bureaucratic government were to
\nbe, let us not say "overthrown" but to be driven to retire in a
\ndungeon from the scene, the Arms Act would deal with them and the people would
\nvery soon have the means as well as the will to defend themselves. The second is
\nthat the police in a free India would be compelled to protect the citizens
\ninstead of supplementing the deficiencies of the hooligans. It is easy to wrench
\nall means of self-defence out of the hands of people, savagely repress all
\nattempts at mutual protection, leave them to the mercy of the turbulent classes,
\nallowing even the police whom we pay to protect the peace to "get
\ncompletely out of hand" and loot unpunished, and then taunt the victims
\nwith their inability to defend themselves and the necessity of an alien and
\nirresponsible third party for keeping the peace. The argument has worn thin and
\ncan no longer serve its purpose. The Empire <\/i>errs grievously in thinking
\nthat police violence and hooliganism are the royal road to peace and
\nconciliation. East Bengal and the Chitpur outrages will not pacify and
\nconciliate Calcutta. The only result will be to more fiercely embitter the
\nstruggle. One other result there may indeed be \u2014 to eventually dethrone the
\nnationalist leaders and destroy their control over the van of the movement as
\nthe control of the Moderates has already been destroyed; for as the exasperation
\nincreases their attempts to regulate the movement will be resented and
\nthemselves condemned as cowards and moderates at heart. But who will fill the
\nvacant place? Police Commissioner Halliday or Mr. Blair, does the Empire <\/i>think?
\nOr prophets of desperation beside whom Bepin Chandra Pal will shine like an
\nangel of loyalty in the<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage-556<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\neyes
\nof Anglo-India? Yes, the bureaucrats and their underlings are doing much to
\nbreak down the creed of passive resistance which we have promulgated and to
\nprove our policy impossible. But will passive resistance be replaced by
\nquiescence? If so, we have much misread history. The immediate future looks dark
\nand gloomy, a chaos the end of which no man can foresee. But whatever God does
\nis good and still our cry to our Mother is the same, "Though thou slay us,
\nyet will we trust in thee."<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n"Armenian
\nHorrors"<\/font><\/a><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n


\n <\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

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

\nIt
\nhas been pointed out to us that the tone of our reporter’s account of
\nThursday’s doings was hardly in consonance with the creed and the spirit of
\nwhich the Bande Mataram <\/i>is the exponent. The facts reported are not
\nmaterially different from those attested by other Indian dailies, but there is
\ntoo much hysterical and lachrymose exaggeration of phrase in describing them. As
\nit is no part of our policy to conceal our own lapses, we will at once admit
\nthat there is truth in the complaint. To talk of Armenian horrors in such a
\nconnection is the rhetoric of an excited Moderate disappointed in his reliance
\non European humanity and "superior" civilisation, not of a sturdy
\nNationalist organ which has always foreseen the possibility of this and worse
\nthings as the price we shall have to pay for liberty. We withdraw therefore this
\nand all similar expressions. Calcutta has as yet suffered nothing like what East
\nBengal has suffered, to say nothing of Armenia and Bulgaria. We are as yet only
\nat the beginning of our journey and have not gone down into the valley of death
\nthrough which our way lies to the promised land. It will not do to whine or
\nshriek over some shops looted and men robbed and beaten or even over a few
\ncorpses of our countrymen floating in the Ganges, if the report be true, \u2014
\nthis and far worse than this we shall have to meet with a calm brow and a brave
\nheart. Not merely in goods and money but with the blood from our hearts we shall
\nhave to pay for the sins of our forefathers.<\/font><\/p>\n


\nBande Mataram<\/i>,
\n<\/i> <\/font> October 5, 1907<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage-557<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The \u201cStatesman\u201d in Retreat              THE strong censures which the Statesman‘s article on the Bande Mataram Case has called forth from the Bengali Press…<\/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-425","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\/425","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=425"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/425\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=425"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=425"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=425"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}