Part 10
Gentlemen, you will find similar expressions of his opinion in January and one or two in February. In March, Mr. Surendranath Banerjea went to Delhi and from that moment--well I am reminded of the "Rake's progress"--I shudder to think of the last step--I think, we the people of Bengal--we are entitled to ask for an explanation of this phenomenon. We are entitled to ask Sir Surendranath--I beg your pardon, gentlemen, I beg his pardon too--coming events cast their shadow before and I was caught in that shadow just for a moment--I think, gentlemen, we are entitled to ask Mr. Surendranath why is it that yesterday he was determined not to have any measure of self-government which was not satisfactory, which was not responsible, which was not wide in its scope and why is it that to-day in the month of June, 1918, he is of opinion that whatever scheme the Secretary of State puts forward should be accepted by the people--if it is satisfactory it should be accepted, if it is not satisfactory, even then it should be accepted because if we did not accept it, the British people might not grant anything at all. We want an explanation of this. He is the leader of Bengal--he claims that. I am free to acknowledge that claim, but we the people of Bengal who have loved him, followed him and honoured him, we who had "learnt his great language" and "caught his clear accents," we who had followed him with all the devotion of our hearts, we who had lived "in his mild and magnificent eye" for the last 30 years, are we not entitled to ask him to explain to us the inner significance the deeper meaning of this change? (Hear hear,) It cannot be for "a handful silver," we are told, it is not for "a riband to stick in his coat." What is it then?
WAS IT TOUCH OF HAND OR TURN OF HEAD?
Was there anything in the atmosphere of Delhi which brought about this change--was it something said, something done?--was it touch of hand or turn of head? What was it? Was it the growing wisdom of old age? Surely some explanation is due from him to the people of Bengal and as for his reasons, I have told you and I repeat: as long as I shall live I shall repeat that whether the people of England are willing or not willing to grant us any reform, that will not induce me to accept it unless it recognises my natural right--a real scheme of reform means the recognition of the natural rights of the people of this country (Loud cheers) I claim no favour. I stand on my right.
WE STAND ON OUR RIGHTS
What rights can the British people give me if I have not the claim within myself? Can man create rights? They can only recognise the rights which I have within me, the rights which belong to me, the rights which are given to me by God and rights which no man can take away. Unless you can satisfy that, unless you can make good that position, neither the British Parliament, nor all the Parliaments of the world will be able to confer on you things which do not belong to you. Strive for the thing which belongs to you. Say to them manfully, "this is my right" and prove that assertion by the voice of the people, the united voice of the nation (cheers). Prove that assertion and when you have done that, is there any power in this world which can say, you will not have that which belongs to you (cheers). They can only keep it from you as long as you do not realise that it is yours. That which you realise as your own cannot be taken away from you. The moment you realise this is your own, that moment that right will have to be recognised and not a moment sooner. No half-measures will create that, no tinkering scheme of reforms has ever made a nation in the past and will never make a nation in the future. Is it not Mr. Surendranath Banerjea who has repeated times without number that nations are by themselves made (Loud Cheers)?
THE WISDOM OF THE LEADER OF YESTERDAY
We have to make ourselves. Is this the way? This way which Mr. Surendranath Banerjea is now recommending, is this the way to make a nation? It is a critical period in our political history: there was no crisis in the history of India from the earliest times down to the present which was more critical than this and at this critical time for a leader of our people to say 'give us what little you think wise, we, the people of this country will accept it.'--Is it politics? Is it wisdom? Or is it madness? Surely an explanation is due to the people.
Well, gentlemen, take this to your heart to-day and make a solemn vow that if you are fit for self-government, you have got to demonstrate that. No words ever produced or created rights. Enactments are nothing. They simply recognise rights which exist. The rights belong to you if you only realise the position--they are not yours, if you hesitate (cheers). If you hesitate, you are lost. If you are afraid to realise that you have rights you are not fit for self-government. The rights of nationality were never granted to a nation of cowards (hear, hear).
I thank you again, gentlemen, for listening to me patiently. I had many things more to say and if I find another opportunity I shall again address you (cheers).
THE GREAT DENIAL
_At Chittagong on the 17th June 1918, under the auspices of the local Home Rule League, a meeting was held under the presidency of Babu Jatra Mohan Sen, when Mr. C. R. Das delivered the following speech_:--
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I wish you had not insisted on my speaking to-night as I am anxious not to spoil the effect of the brilliant address (of the Hon. Mr. Fazlul Huq) to which you have just listened (go on, go on). If I rise to respond to the call from the Chairman, I confess it is not without some hesitation. Gentlemen, Mr. Huq has dealt with the question of Home Rule from many points of view, with considerable force and with great eloquence. I desire to say that I am in complete agreement with everything that has fallen from him. (Cheers).
You will, however, permit me to-night to tell you a story--the story of the great denial. The other day our distinguished Chairman said that we are in the midst of a great crisis. I also said that the present crisis of India is greater and more serious than any in her history. But to-day I will tell you the story of the great denial. As a preface to my story I shall ask you to recall to your mind the principal incidents of our national history under British Rule. More than a century and a half have passed by and at the end of it we find that the people of Bengal, the vast majority of them at any rate, are not educated and this want of education is put forward by the authorities as an argument against Home Rule. I have given this answer before and I repeat it again--if they are not educated, whose fault is it? What have the authorities been doing here for the last 150 years if they have not succeeded in educating the people of this country? What excuse is there for this failure? Is there a national government anywhere in the history of civilization, which after it took up the work of education, did not finish and complete it within, say, 30 years? (Hear, hear). Do you doubt for a moment that if we get self-government now, we will be able to educate the people of this country in another 20 years? But why has not this been done by the Government? Let the Bureaucracy answer--This is a chapter in the story of the great denial (Hear, hear).
OUR AGRICULTURE
Now, gentlemen, take the question of agriculture in this country. The Indian village-life was the envy of the world at one time. What are our villages now? How does our agriculture stand to-day? Has the Government done anything on that behalf during the last 150 years, which is at all worthy of a great nation and a great Government? (Cries of 'no,' 'no'). Yes, the answer must be 'no'. Why not? Because agriculture does not directly concern the bureaucracy of this country. It may be necessary to start a department and call it department of agriculture in the interest of the bureaucracy. That has been done--one or two colleges which are not suited to our requirements have been established. But has agriculture improved? I do not know whether in the interest of the Bureaucracy it is necessary that it should. But it is necessary for us. It is a matter of vital importance to the nation that the cultivators of Bengal should prosper and live better lives (hear, hear). It is a matter of supreme importance to those who want self-government or swaraj in this country (hear, hear). We must look forward to the whole Bengalee nation. We must work persistently, we must look forward to the day when the Bengalees as a nation, Hindus and Mahomedans, all together, will stand before the world in all the glory of nationality (cheers). I say therefore the question is of vital importance from the point of view of the nation. Who are the people of Bengal? Not we, who conduct cases in court, not those who sit as magistrates and judges. But who are they? It is those who cultivate the land--they are the real nation (cheers) and if ever this country rises--by God's grace, rise it must--and takes its place amongst the nations of the world (Loud cheers)--well, long before that, the agriculture of this country must be improved. That is one of the reasons why we want Home rule. This is another chapter in the story of the great denial (hear, hear).
OUR COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
Now, gentlemen, what is the story of our commerce and industry? I do not desire to begin from the beginning. I will not recall to mind or help you to recall to your mind the history of the destruction of our trade and the annihilation of our industries. Let the dead past bury its dead. But what about the living? What has the Government done to encourage Commerce and Industry in recent years? It is the crying need of the hour--the peculiar circumstances of this country demand a solution of this problem. Has the bureaucracy done anything in this matter? It is the duty of every civilized government to lend a helping hand and thus encourage the growth of Commerce and Industry. Can the Bureaucracy lay its hand on its breast and say that it has fulfilled its trust? The answer must be 'no'. That is another reason why we want Home Rule, and gentlemen, that is another chapter in the story of the great denial (hear, hear).
Do you want proof? For agriculture, the Government spends only 24 lacs of rupees out of Bengal's share of land-revenue which is 1-1/2 crores. What do the Government do with that money? The Bureaucracy says we who want Home Rule are not fit to represent the people! What has the Government done for them? They spend only 24 lacs of rupees or rather misspend it. Have any improvements been effected? That is the test. It is possible to have highly paid European agricultural officers without agricultural improvements.
That is exactly what has happened!
FIVE MILLION SOULS LOST IN FIVE YEARS
Now, gentlemen, what about sanitation? Shall I tell you the story of how the people are dying in this country for want of sanitation for the last few years? Listen to these figures.
In 1911-12--9 lacs of people died of malaria alone In 1912-13--9·59 " " " In 1913-14--9·65 " " " In 1914-15--10·61 " " " In 1915-16--10·64 " " "
So in five years we have had five million victims (Cries of Oh!) for want of sanitation in this country. Five million men in five years! More than the combined army of Great Britain and Ireland to-day! (Cries of Oh!) We have had representations and opinions of experts and a few experiments but what has really been done up to now? Are we to believe that this fell disease could not have been eradicated if the Government had taken active steps in that direction? Do you believe, gentlemen that if the government is nationalised--effectively nationalised--we cannot get rid of this disease? It is a matter of supreme importance to us, to the growing nationality of Bengal. It means that every year there is an increase in the number of deaths, it means want of strength, it means decrease of national vitality, it means that at not a very distant day we will be reduced to such a condition that it will be impossible to regenerate us. (hear, hear). I have given you only the number of people who die every year. But do we not see all over the whole country malaria-stricken people living by chance as it were--carrying on by some means or other, their miserable load of existence? The whole of Bengal is full of these people and yet what has the Government done? ('Nothing') Yes, practically nothing.
EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
_Three Annas per Head per Year._
Let me give you the figures regarding education which is very interesting. The average amount spent by the Government is 85 lacs of rupees for education. The population of Bengal is 450 lacs, _i.e._, 5 persons per rupee per year. It means three annas per head per year spent for the noble cause of education! (laughter) It means again one pice per head per month! (Shame). And we are told that England's duty in India is to spread education so that the degraded people of the country may be elevated! (laughter) And three annas per head per year is spent for this noble cause! But don't you think these are purely educational expenses. It also includes the cost of building (Laughter). It includes the cost of inspection which exceeds the pay of the teachers (Shame). You can well imagine what is left for education proper. Talk of education gentlemen? Who cares for education? Not the bureaucracy.
GOVERNMENT ENCOURAGEMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY--MR. SWAN'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
With regard to expenditure on commerce and industry, well, you may say very little, practically nothing is spent. I will simply quote to you the observations of a member of the Indian Civil Service, Mr. J. Swan, who has written a report on the industrial condition of Bengal.
"While the industrial development of the province must depend on private enterprise I think the encouragement of Government might take a more active form than it has hitherto done."
Encouragement of the Government might take a more active form! Well, you cannot expect a member of the Civil Service to write more than that. Then again:--
"Adequate capital is particularly necessary in case of industries run by Indian capital and under Indian management owing to the reluctance of banks and of firms to give them credit."
THE REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT
This is what Mr. Swan writes. You may gather therefore that very little is done for industry and commerce. Now that is the position. This state of things went on for years. We were sleeping. At the end of every year we used to hold a meeting of the Congress and beyond that we had no kind of activity. But from the year 1905, there was a great
## activity in this country which we called the Swadeshi movement. And we
find from that time the Government indulged in a series of repressive measures and I believe those repressive measures in their turn gave rise to a party in Bengal, who are described by the Government as anarchists but who are, I venture to think, not anarchists at all--they are revolutionaries. I do not for a moment suggest that the methods which they employ are good or ought to be encouraged but they are not anarchists. It is not that they want to do away with all Government--what they want to do is to change the system of government (hear, hear). So far as I have been able to judge the object of these so called anarchists is not different from the object of the Congress or the Moslem League. The only difference lies in the method which they pursue. They pursue methods which are subversive of law and order whereas the Congress-League adopts methods which are legal. This is the only difference. The methods they pursue are deserving of severe condemnation but I think it is a great injustice to call them anarchists. Be that as it may--I say that after these repressive measures, one after another, in rapid succession--we have in our midst a revolutionary party in Bengal.
Now, it has been often said that we are not fit for self-government because of the existence of this revolutionary party. My answer is: I do not deny that there is a revolutionary party. I admit it and I say that no government which is not a national government will ever be able to put a stop to this revolutionary movement. What do these people want? They want freedom. They want to change the system of government. I told you just now that their object is the same as that of the Congress and the Moslem League. I go further and I say that their object--not their methods--is now recognised as legitimate by the British Cabinet. In August last year, the British Cabinet declared that some kind of responsible government should be introduced into this country. What does that mean? It means that the system of government which obtains now, which is bureaucratic, should be changed or otherwise it is an admission on the part of our masters--after all it is the British Cabinet who are our masters and not the Bureaucracy here--it is an admission on the part of our masters that a change of government, of the bureaucratic system of government is necessary for the welfare of India. I say the object of the so-called anarchists is not only the same as that of the Congress and the League but it is an object which is recognised and sanctioned by the highest authority in England. Therefore, gentlemen, I say, as I have said elsewhere, that the only way you can put a stop to this revolutionary movement is by recognising that simple fact that the people of this country--they are hungry for Freedom--should be given what they want and I say the moment you give freedom to the people, there will be an end of this revolutionary movement (hear, hear). It has been pointed out over and over again, but the Bureaucracy will not listen. Gentlemen, that is the position of affairs to-day. Our agriculture neglected, our education neglected, sanitation neglected, industry and commerce not seriously considered and along with that we have got a revolutionary movement in this country. This is the present situation and it is upon that that a memorable declaration was made by the British Cabinet in August last year. Now, gentlemen, what have we to say to that? I desire to place before you clearly what I mean: Your declaration goes one way and your action goes another way. That is the real grievance of the people of this country. Tell us, if you want, 'you are not fit for self-government, we will not give you self-government.' I can understand that position. I respect plain speaking. I am fond of plain speaking. Let the bureaucracy say in clear terms 'we cannot afford to give you responsible government. We want to have this government as bureaucratic as ever.' 'You can get a little change here and there, political lolipops with which you can amuse yourselves. But we will not give you responsible government'--let them so declare, if they like, and we will then drop this political agitation. Our difficulty is this: We believe in the words of the Declaration and in that belief we have been devising schemes, holding meetings to consider schemes of self-government and to consider what would be the best form of self-government, in this country and to help the Government with our suggestions so that the British Parliament may consider this.
HOW GOVERNMENT HAS TREATED HOME RULERS' PROPOSAL
Now, gentlemen, when things were going on in that way we had another declaration, a more memorable message from the Prime Minister, in which the Prime Minister asked our help at the time of a great crisis, asked us to avert a great danger which threatened England and which threatened India. Now what did we do under the circumstance? We held meetings again and we told the Government that at this juncture 'you must have one united India, you must create an enthusiasm in this country, real enthusiasm which will lead people to make every sacrifice for the country and for the empire' and we asked the Government to do away with the repressive measures, to release the political suspects and the political prisoners (loud cheers). The whole country regards that as an oppression. We said to the Government. Do away with that oppression: Make a definite proposal about self-government and you will have the whole country with you. You will have hundreds and thousands of soldiers fighting for you, fighting for India, fighting for the Empire--you will have the gold of the rich and the copper of the poor--every sacrifice that may be required of the people will be willingly, ungrudgingly, cheerfully made for the service of the country and for upholding the glory of the empire (cheers). How was that accepted by the bureaucracy? I must confess to a sense of hopelessness that Government paid not the slightest attention to it. Shortly after that there was the Conference at Delhi. Let me quote to you the words of His Excellency the Viceroy, words in which he pictures the great danger which threatens us:
"Germany has already thrown out into Central Asia her pioneers of intrigue, her agents of disintegration. The lesson she has learnt from the Russian Revolution that a stronger weapon than all the armaments that money can buy or science devise is the disruption of an enemy by his own internal forces."
Then later on,
"I have spoken of the cause. I have told you of the death-grip on the western front and have unfolded to you the story of German machinations in the East."
We were ready to help the Government when we were told that a great danger threatened the whole of the British Empire and India. That danger is admitted by His Excellency the Viceroy, it was suggested by the message of the Prime Minister. It was admitted and if I may have the impertinence of saying, clearly and eloquently described by His Excellency the Viceroy. But what about our suggestions? Is it not a fact that whenever we are anxious to give the bureaucracy in this country good advice, sane advice, advice which is necessary for the welfare not only of this country but of England also, the welfare of the whole empire, that advice is received with scorn and contempt? What does the Viceroy say? After describing the difficulty which threatens us, His Excellency says:
"We can, I believe, best do so (help the Amir to keep his ship straight) by showing our enemies first that India is solid as a rock."