{"id":785,"date":"2013-07-13T01:30:24","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:30:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=785"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:30:24","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:30:24","slug":"11-a-point-of-honour-vol-27-supplement-volume-27","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/01-sabcl\/27-supplement-volume-27\/11-a-point-of-honour-vol-27-supplement-volume-27","title":{"rendered":"-11_A Point of Honour.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n

\n
\nA Point of Honour<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n         
\n<\/span> <\/span>                    
\n<\/b><\/span><\/font>I<\/font><\/b>T IS a point of honour in more
\nsenses than one, to stoutly refuse to approach the Secretary of State with a
\nfresh petition for the reopening of the Partition Question. Mr. Morley has
\npublicly said his last word. He has repeatedly refused to listen to our prayers;
\nand it cannot be consistent with our dignity as a civilised and ancient people
\nto go a-begging to him once more on this very subject. But Mr. Morley, it is
\nsuggested, is himself willing to reopen the question. The confidential letter
\nfrom London upon which this proposal for a fresh memorial is professedly based,
\nbears internal evidence of this fact. "I am not at liberty," the
\nwriter says, "to speak about conferences I had just before leaving London.
\nAll that I can tell you is to advise you to have an influential and
\nrepresentative meeting, say, early in September, to adopt a strong,
\nwell-reasoned memorial, suggesting alternative schemes of Partition based on
\nracial and linguistic grounds etc., etc." "There are
\nindications," he says again, "that the Cabinet are willing to
\nreconsider the Partition Question on its merits." The writer had
\n"conferences in London", evidently with the Indian Secretary and other
\nmembers of the Government. He is not at liberty to say what he heard; but he
\nadvises us to send a memorial, and holds out the hope that it will be
\nsuccessful. It does not take much intelligence to see that the suggestion of a
\nfresh memorial must have come thus from the Government themselves. It happened
\nlast year also. When Mr. Morley was asked by Mr. Gokhale to reconsider the
\nPartition Question, he raised a preliminary objection asking how a settled
\nmatter could be reconsidered. Mr. Gokhale replied that if a memorial came from
\nBengal, that would justify a reopening of the question. Mr. Morley said that
\nthat, of course, was a feasible plan. A great deal of inspiration for the
\nsubmission of the last memorial was drawn from the report of this conversation
\nof Mr. Gokhale with the new Secretary of State for India. That memorial has been
\nrejected, we think. If it has not been rejected as yet,<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-30<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

as simply been thrown
\naway silently, it may easily be taken up now 
\n<\/span>by the Secretary of State, and thus find a decent plea for
\nreconsideration of his settled fact. That memorial was our last on this subject.
\nThe alternative scheme suggested by the London writer was there, we believe.
\nWhat better arguments can we give in a fresh memorial today? The fact seems,
\nindeed, to be as clear as daylight that if what the writer of the confidential
\non letter says be true, the Government want a fresh petition from us to save
\ntheir prestige. Would it be politic for us to help them in this? There is a
\nconflict of forces in the country. It is a moral conflict. The issue is: who is
\nthe stronger, morally, the Government or the people? Our future depends on our
\ncapacity to prove our superior strength. Our relations with the Government are
\nsuch that every increase in their prestige means so much loss of strength to us.
\nIt is, therefore, that we consider this attempt to send such a fresh petition to
\nGovernment on this Partition Question, an act of fatal folly, and are so
\nbitterly opposed
\nto it.<\/font><\/p>\n

      
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>       
\n<\/span>It is not a mere matter of sentiment, but of sound and faring policy,
\nwhether we should go again to Government with a prayer for the revocation or
\nmodification of the Partition, question; and those who are secretly working for
\ngetting up a memorial to the Secretary of State do not seem to have d the nature
\nof the problem they have been called upon to solve.<\/font><\/p>\n


\n              
\n<\/span>But the most serious objection to this new memorial comes the boycott
\nmovement. How shall we keep up the boycott, 
\n<\/span>can we honourably do so, if, in response to this fresh lion, the
\nPartition of Bengal is removed or modified to suit wishes? Babu Surendranath
\nBanerji says in. his confidential circular letter:<\/font><\/p>\n

           
\n<\/font> <\/span>Knowing
\nas we do how careful and cautious a man X is, I we should act wisely in
\nfollowing his advice. Of course the rigours of the boycott are not to be relaxed
\nin the smallest degree. We must continue the boycott as before. It is our great
\nweapon will help our representation."<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-31
\n <\/font><\/p>\n

\n

The language here is not very
\nclear. Mr. Banerji asks us not to relax the rigours of the boycott; he urges us
\nto continue the boycott as before. But he does not say if we are not only to do
\nit while sending our petition, and while this petition is being considered by
\nthe Indian State Secretary, or we are also to do so even after this prayer is
\ngranted and the Partition is removed. This confusion is increased by his
\nlast sentence: – "It is our great weapon
\nand will help our representation." Are we to take it, then, that we are to
\nkeep the boycott up as a great weapon, to help our representation? The weapon
\nthen must be laid down after the fight is over, the objective is gained; the
\nboycott is to be given up after the representation has succeeded. This is the
\nlogic of what Babu Surendranath says. Is this his real opinion? The public have
\na right to get a definite statement of policy from him on this question. We have
\na right to know if, after our representation succeeds and the Partition is
\nrevoked, Babu Surendranath will still lead the boycott, keep up its rigours,
\nextend and strengthen it, as he is doing now. We want a clear, definite,
\nunequivocal statement on this point from him.<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

       <\/span>        
\n<\/span>But, as we have already
\npointed out in these columns, we
\nfail to see how Babu Surendranath or anyone else who subscribes to this new
\nmemorial, can, after, – and if, – it is granted, honestly keep the boycott up,
\nor press for its expansion. The boycott-vow has always been associated in Babu
\nSurendranath’s propaganda, though not in the opinion of the people, with the
\nPartition Question, – until
\nPartition is removed, is one of its conditions. How, then, can it be kept up
\nwhen Partition is re- moved? There is such a thing as honour" among
\nthieves: shall there be no honour between a subject people and their rulers? If
\nwe send a memorial again, and in consequence of this memorial, the Partition is
\nrevoked or modified accordingly as we ourselves suggest in this memorial, and we
\nstill refuse to withdraw the present boycott of British goods, with what face
\nshall we, in the future, condemn the Government for their broken pledges?<\/font><\/p>\n

             
\n<\/span>Indeed, Babu Surendranath is, we know,
\nvery strong on the boycott, and if it is bluntly put to him whether he wants the
\nboycott to be given up or the Partition of Bengal to be removed, we<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n


\nPage-32<\/p>\n

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

\n

are confident that he will
\nprefer to have the continuance of the boycott to the removal of the Partition.
\nBut it is more than what can perhaps, be said of those who are pulling the wires
\nfrom London, whether
\nthey are our own men, Mr. Gokhale or Mr. Romesh Chandra Dutt, or whether
\nthey are our British friends .like
\nsir<\/span>  <\/span>Henry<\/span>
\nCotton or Sir William Wedderburn and other librerals. The School to which Mr.
\nGokhale belongs, – the
\nMeheta- Wacha school of Indian politics, – has never expressed sympathy with the
\nboycott. Messrs. Mehta and Wacha are known to be dead against it. Mr. Wacha, it
\nis notorious, would not help us in our sorest hour of need, this time last year
\nthe Bombay Mills pushed up prices most greedily in view increased demand for country-goods in Bengal, and when Mr.Tilak 
\n<\/span>went from door to door trying to induce the Bombay Millers to 
\n<\/span>help the Bengal boycott, and succeeded in arranging a meeting of them; the meeting was rudely dispersed, our informant
\n,by the
\nGeneral Secretary of the Congress. For some years past attempts have been made,
\nespecially by Babu Baikunthanath Sen of Berhampur, to pass a Resolution
\nrecommending the use swadeshi goods, but Mr. Mehta has always managed hitherto
\nto prevent its inclusion in the agenda of the Congress. Mr.Gokhale’s
\npronouncement on the boycott, in his Benares address,
\nis very <\/i>halting and, from our point of view, extremely unsatisfactory. He
\nspoke in an apologetic tone about it, justifying it, not larger economic grounds
\nas a protective tariff; nor on larger political grounds, as an effective
\ninstrument for awakening self-consciousness  <\/span>in the people; but simply as a protest against the ,lee of
\nthe Partition and as a last means left to a subject people to arouse the
\nconscience of their rulers to their duties and responsibilities
\ntowards them. Mr. Gokhale would surely not support the continuance of the
\nboycott if Partition is revoked, or if British conscience is awakened, – whatever that may mean, the duties and
\nresponsibilities in India. The writer of the London<\/span>
\n letter on which this proposal for sending a fresh
\nmemorial is based, himself does not seem to view the boycott with much
\nfavour; <\/span>and
\nthis is indicated by a sinister sentence given parenthetically<\/span> in
\nhis letter<\/span>: –<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

Page-33
\n <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

"<\/span>Bengal
\nwill have to work a little longer – not hysterically, but rationally and
\nstrongly <\/i>– making it clear that she will not accept the present
\nPartition."<\/span><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n


\n    
\n     <\/span>The italics are ours, and this sentence
\nshows that, in the opinion of the writer, our agitation during the last year has
\nbeen hysterical and irrational to some extent. If so, where and how? Our own
\nsuspicion is that even this writer would recommend a withdrawal of the boycott
\nas soon as Partition is withdrawn. Are we prepared to do so? If not, how can we
\nsend in a fresh memorial to the Indian Secretary of State on this subject,
\nknowing and believing that if he reopens it and revokes the Partition, he will
\ndo so not out of regard for our feelings, but out of fear for the awful
\ncomplications that the present boycott agitation has created in the
\nadministration of this country; and that if, in response to our prayer, the
\nPartition is revoked, it will be a point of honour with us to withdraw the
\nboycott at once. We do not care to argue with those who hold that truth and
\nhonour are not obligatory on us in our dealings with the Government.<\/p>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span>
\nPage-34<\/span><\/span><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A Point of Honour                                   IT IS a point of honour in more senses than one, to stoutly refuse to approach the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-785","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-27-supplement-volume-27","wpcat-16-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/785","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=785"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/785\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=785"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=785"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=785"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}