Part 9
Gentlemen, we are not fighting for our narrow sordid self-interest--we are not fighting for the interest of to-day--we are not fighting for the betterment of myself or yourselves--of the present generation or of the educated community. If there are any selfish ideals pursued by any portion of our community, I stand dissociated from them and I say I take my stand on this and nothing more--it does not matter what happens to me--it does not matter what happens to the present generation--it does not matter what happens to the educated community of to-day, but what matters with me is the development of the nation (Cheers.) I look forward to the time when the Bengalee nation will rise and stand in all its glory. I do not care whether I am alive or dead at that moment (Loud Cheers)--whether my children will be living then or not--but the time will come when by God's grace, Bengalees as a nation will make themselves felt and will stand in all their strength and face the world. That is the ideal which appeals to me every moment of my life. I feel within myself that that is my appointed task. I shall devote all that I hold dear to the service of that cause and--if I die in that attempt--what then? "Fail we alone"?--if I die in this work, I believe I shall be born in this country again and again, live for it, hope for it, work for it with all the energy of my life and with all the love of my nature, till I see the fulfilment of my hope and the realisation of this ideal (Loud Cheers).
SHALL WE FOLLOW A LEADER OF YESTERDAY EVEN WHEN HE IS WRONG
Gentlemen, when we started this agitation--basing it on the ideal to which I have just referred--ever since then we have been living under a cross fire. The bureaucracy has been against us, as it is natural they would be against us, as it is natural they should be against us. But I am sorry to say that along with these there is a party of Bengalees in Calcutta who also have set themselves against the fulfilment of this noble ideal. When I read the criticisms which appear in the _Statesman_ or the _Englishman_ I feel glad because I know that we have succeeded in exposing the illogical position which they take. But when I read similar things in the _Bengalee_, I assure you, I feel a great pain in my heart. I cannot understand it. Is this ideal to be pursued from the consideration of purely personal question? We have been told that the leaders of yesterday are the only people who can lead us. I do not deny their claim to lead. But I am not one of those who would follow a leader simply because he was a leader yesterday. I want him to lead. Anybody who leads the real politics of the country at the present time is a man whom I honour and I am prepared to bow down and take the dust of his feet. But if a man comes to me and says: look here you will have to do this--it does not matter what the people of Bengal want--I am the leader of Bengal--this has been done by me--it has got to be supported--well, my answer to him is: "thou imposter!" No one has got that right. We stand or fall as we pursue or desist from the popular cause. I am nothing. No leader is anything. The strength belongs to the nation whose representative I am, whose representative every one of us may become. It is not my own strength. It is the peoples' strength. Take your stand on that and we will worship you as a leader, as a martyr, as anything which you can claim but fall short of that ideal once by a hair's breadth, your claim is no longer to be recognised. If I have expressed myself strongly, believe me, gentlemen, it is because I have felt deeply--I feel, I have been stabbed to the heart by this attitude--this contempt of public opinion.
WAS THERE AN UNDERTAKING?
Now, gentlemen, you all know that we are expecting a scheme of self-government from the British Parliament. What that scheme is I do not know. No one has got the right to know but we are expecting some scheme. We heard that Mr. Montagu had shown or talked about the outline of that scheme to some Indian leaders--Mr. Surendranath Banerjea of Bengal, Pundit Madan Mohan Malaviya of the U. P. and Mr. Shastri of Madras and certain other gentlemen. I do not know if it is true but I suspect it is. We are also told--it is not admitted--we are told that some of these gentlemen had given a promise to the Secretary of State that they would get the people of this country to accept that scheme. I am not saying that this is admitted but that is what I have heard.
THE CONFIDENTIAL LETTER.
Now what do we find after that? A few days after Mr. Montagu's departure, a confidential letter over the signature of Babu Satyananda Bose was circulated and anybody who reads that letter will see that the attempt is to give up what was decided in the Bengal Provincial Conference for all Bengal,--to give it up, and to take whatever is offered to us by the Secretary of State! Why was that circular issued? Was it only Mr. Satyananda Bose who circulated this or was there a party behind it? We know Mr. Satyananda Bose is a follower of Mr. Surendranath Banerjea. Was it the attempt of only Mr. Satyananda Bose or was it a subtle attempt made in the dark to throw out to the people the suggestion that they ought to be satisfied with anything which it may please Mr. Montagu to give, to prepare the ground for the acceptance of Mr. Montagu's scheme? After that we heard that a special session of the Congress would be held in Bombay.
THE CONGRESS COMMITTEE'S CIRCULAR
It is after that that the secretaries of the Provincial Congress Committee wrote this letter:
"Dear Sir,--It appears that the Secretary of State for India will very soon make his announcement about the proposed Reforms. It is in contemplation to hold a special session of the Congress and of the Provincial Conference after the announcement. We have a duty to perform. The future of our country for at least a generation will depend upon the nature of the Reforms. You will therefore keep yourselves ready to hold public meetings, to attend the Congress (wherever held) and the Conference in very large numbers and to fearlessly criticise the proposals if they fall short of our ideal. We must make a united stand and see that they meet our legitimate aspirators.
Yours faithfully,--_I. B. Sen, Bejoy Krishna Bose, Secys."_
Now, gentlemen, you have heard the whole of this letter. Do you think there is anything objectionable in this letter? What does the letter say? It says merely that Mr. Montagu is going to make his pronouncement and that we have to watch, if it falls short of our ideal and our legitimate aspirations and if so we ought to fight against it, we ought to attend in large numbers, the special session of the Congress and conference to show a united front, and to criticise the scheme fearlessly. Now, is there anything in this to which any Nationalist, any person who has the good of his country at heart can take the slightest objection?
THE 'BENGALEE'S PATHOS
I will read out to you what the _Bengalee_ says. Unfortunately we cannot dissociate the Editor of the _Bengalee_ from the paper. Otherwise I would have cast it into the waste-paper basket and would not have thought about it. This is what the _Bengalee_ writes in its editorial of June 6th;--
"We confess that we have read the above with pain and regret, though not with surprise, for in a recent article, we pretty clearly indicated the constitution and the policy of the present Bengal Provincial Congress Committee. The old leaders are the men of yesterday and they of course should have no voice in the deliberation of the _New India_ which they have helped to build up. For we are always wiser than our fathers, and to acknowledge our indebtedness to them is to belittle our own importance which must always be a prime consideration. There is only one little risk which their policy involves and they may as well be reminded of it thus early, _viz_., that they may be paid back in their own coins and with compound interest by those who come after them."
What is there in this innocent letter to call for this personal and vehement attack? Are we to be condemned because we are asking the people of this country to watch the pronouncement of the Secretary of State? We are asking the people of this country to examine it and if it falls short of popular demands to criticise it, fearlessly and to hold meetings and to attend those meetings in large numbers. "Large numbers" is italicised by the _Bengalee_. It is a crime, a new crime to hold meetings where "large numbers" attend. It used not to be so in the past but it has become a crime now! I will go on reading another passage from this article:--
THE REALLY GREAT DANGER
"Let us now pass on to the consideration of the circular. The tone is pessimistic. It is even worse: it is that of the alarmist who raises the signal note of warning, as if we were on the eve of a great danger."
Well, gentlemen, if I am to tell you the truth, I admit that I suspect we are on the eve of a great danger and that grave danger is the acceptance of a system of self-government which will not give us the reality, which will give us self-government in name but not in fact. It is the duty of every Nationalist to raise that alarm. It does no harm to watch, even suspiciously watch what it is and if it does not satisfy the people of this country, to reject it, to say that we do not want it,--Take it back.
"Our countrymen are asked to be ready to fearlessly criticise the proposals, if they fall short of our ideal."
Very wrong indeed! Now mark what follows:--
"Brave words indeed coming with special aptness from some of those who ran away as fast as their legs could carry them when the Police broke up the Barisal Conference."
That is worthy of the leader of the Bengalee nation! To circulate--this falsehood! It may be within the recollection of many of you (Jatra Mohan Babu nods his head)--it is within the recollection of our distinguished Chairman--this falsehood originated in Colootolla in the year 1906 or 1907. The falsity of this was demonstrated then, and now in the year of grace, 1918, we find the truthful Editor of the _Bengalee_ newspaper referring to that lie and putting forward that lie as an argument against the popular party.
"We are told that we must fearlessly criticise the proposals, if they fall short of our ideal. But if they do not, what then?"
Well then, we accept it (Laughter). What is there to say about it? Then it goes on to say:
"The circular assumes that Mr. Montagu's proposals are bound to be unsatisfactory and that they will mean little or nothing."
Where does the Circular assume that? The Circular merely asserts that if it is, it is our bounden duty to protest against that. Nothing more.
I need not read the rest of it. There is another passage which however I must read to you:
"Why then sound the tocsin of alarm and seek to create a prejudice for which so far as there is no warrant and against which there is a strong body of presumptive evidence. Why talk of fearless criticism and united front"?
This comes from Mr. Surendranath Banerjea! Surely we are fallen on evil times!
THE OLD "LEADER'S ADVICE TO THE PEOPLE."
Then our editor goes on to say:
"If they are satisfactory they should be welcomed; if they are partly satisfactory they should be welcomed to that extent."
(Never)
And why?
"For the British public would then feel inclined to drop them altogether."
To drop them altogether! Now, gentlemen, you have seen what that article is. The letter which was written by the Secretaries of the Provincial Congress Committee is merely put forward as an excuse. What is put forward before the people of Bengal is this; if it is satisfactory, of course, we should accept it. If not? In the article which appeared the next day, he made his position clearer. He said the difficulty is this: The Europeans are clamouring against it--the Indo-European Association in England is fighting against it--and if you, the people of Bengal say that you do not want it, why the British people will say 'then drop it altogether.' My answer to that is: let it be dropped if it is not satisfactory. Mr. Surendranath Banerjea admits it in this writing--let me quote his exact words:
"We quite admit that there have been many paper announcements in the past: and it is only too true that the pages of Anglo-Indian history are strewn broadcast with the fragments of broken pledges."
Let it be another fragment of broken pledge; but let not the people of Bengal consent to that! If their position is this: we will give you this and no further, let them give what they choose; but is it for us to say what little of self-government you choose to give us is amply sufficient for us at the present day? I venture to think that you will not accept such a proposition as that (No, no). We want self-government for a purpose. We do not want that self-government which some people brought up in European politics want--we do not want simply a weapon to fight against the bureaucracy--we have got tired of that and we say for God's sake, let us have peace in Bengal. (cheers) Let us have some sort of self-government which will enable us to look after the agricultural, industrial interests of the country, and to take up the work of education and sanitation which will enable us to work for the real good of the country without being obstructed at every step. That is why we want a change in the system of Government (cheers).
"BENGALEE'S" WRITINGS BEFORE MR. BANERJEA WENT TO DELHI.
Now, gentlemen, supposing Mr. Montagu says you can't get all that, take a little, just a little, a pinch. My position is this: I do not know what others will say. I hope the people of this country will have the courage to say: we want none of it, take it back: if we are to be slaves of the bureaucracy, if all our activities in every direction are to be controlled, and it may be, stifled at the sweet will and pleasure of the bureaucracy, we want none of it. Take it back to England (cheers). We do not want it here. We want courage to say that, I admit. But what right have you to ask for Home Rule if you cannot have the courage to say that--if you cannot have the courage to say to the Government that we don't want it: it will not serve our purpose. What is the good of giving something to the people which they do not want. Now, gentlemen, that I am right in taking this position I shall try to show to you, if you will bear with me--(go on) from one or two extracts from the "Bengalee" newspaper, before a change came over the spirit of its dreams. I will read to you just two or three extracts from the "Bengalee"--not after March when the editor went to Delhi but before that in November and December, 1917. I quote from the "Bengalee" of November 2nd 1917:--
"Mr. Montagu will not be deceived by these tactics (of the anti-Congress-League party). He will know how to appraise them at their proper value. The British Cabinet consisting of politicians of the type of Lord Curzon and Lord Milner have decided that India is to have responsible government and that a substantial advance is to be made in that direction as soon as possible. There is no going back upon this announcement. It must be accepted as a settled policy, from which there can be no departure. Mr. Montagu is coming out to discuss the details and how best this policy can be carried out. It is no use saying "we don't want responsible government; we are not fit for it."
This was Mr. Surendranath Banerjea on November 2nd 1917. He says:--
"Those who breathe a word against it in this crisis of our national evolution are traitors to their country and their God."
This was Mr. Surendranath Banerjea on November 2nd, 1917. On 3rd November, 1917, the mood still continues:
"We want responsible government in full measure in connection with the Provincial Branches of administration, leaving untouched the Departments under the control of the Government of India in regard to which the Congress scheme should apply."
Therefore what he wanted is responsible government in full measure in connection with the provincial branches. On the 11th November, the "Bengalee" writes:
"In Bengal the feeling is--and we think that Bengal reflects the feeling of all India in this matter--that a full measure of provincial autonomy should be at once given with the reform of the Imperial Legislative Council of the India office as recommended by the Congress and the Muslim League. Nothing short of this will satisfy educated India."
This was Mr. Surendranath Banerjea on November 11th. If he is a leader of yesterday, let him remain true to that leadership (Hear, hear). As for myself, standing on this platform to-day, I make a solemn promise to follow this leader if he remains true to what he was yesterday (cheers). I shall follow what Mr. Surendranath Banerjea said on November 11th, 1917 _viz._, that nothing short of this will satisfy educated India (loud cheers). Then on the 21st, November, he repeats the same ideal:
"Courage is the first and last quality of real statesmanship. It was the crowning quality of Akbar, the greatest ruler that ever adorned a throne. Let our rulers take courage in both hands and great will be their reward."
Courage is the first and last quality of real statesmanship! How have the mighty fallen!
NO SHAMS, NO DELUSIONS SAID MR. BANERJEA OF 1917.
He follows that up by saying on November 22nd:
"There must be no shams or shows or delusions. We have had too much of this commodity in the past."
No shams, no delusions. I follow the noble words of Mr. Surendranath Banerjea. I love them so much that I am prepared to follow his teachings. But if the Surendranath Banerjea of to-day does not follow the S. N. Banerjea of yesterday is it my fault that I cannot follow him? (laughter) I adore the Surendranath Banerjea of yesterday, but if he cannot remain true to his trust I cannot be false to my faith. Hear the leader of yesterday again:
"The Minto-Morley scheme, if it was not a dead failure, did not satisfy popular aspirations and was behind the growing requirements of the times. We hope the mistakes will not be repeated in the coming constitutional changes. Provincial autonomy must be the basis of the reforms, not an emasculated, half-hearted, system of Provincial self-government."
Noble words again and I repeat them and I follow them.
"but in full measure with a full share of responsibility. The time for half-measures is past and gone."
Then in the same article he goes on to say:
"The counsels of caution are often the counsels of timidity."
Mark these words, gentlemen. Then he says:
"If the Government will not make over the whole of the provincial administration to a popular Ministry responsible to a popular Assembly, let them at least, entrust to them such departments, as Education, Sanitation, Local Self-government, Police, etc."
Mark these words again. He includes the Police but I was told the other day that we ought not to take the Police; it is a difficult department to administer, (laughter).
Then on the 27th of November, the "Bengalee" writes:
"The country is rushing at a giddy pace and Lord Morley's reforms have failed to meet the exigencies of the times which cannot be satisfied by anything short of a full measure of responsible government."
Further:
"Any scheme that does not fully provide for this and secure full autonomous power for the provinces and falls short of the irreducible minimum put forth in the Congress-League scheme stands self-condemned and will totally fail to meet the wishes and requirements of the people and win their support."
But now he is urging the people of this country to support a scheme which may fall short of his ideal and he says even if it is not satisfactory we should accept it. Even on the 29th of November he says:
"Any tinkering reform of a patch-work kind will not avail to meet the necessities of the situation but will rather intensify the present difficulties."
Gentlemen, I will not weary you with any more extracts but I will quote just two passages, for which I hope you will pardon me (go on, go on).
SURENDRANATH OF DECEMBER, 1917.
On December 1st, Mr. Surendranath Banerjea says:
"Nothing less will satisfy the people of India or redeem the honour of England.... Real power must be given to us. No shams or delusions will satisfy us. We have had enough of them.... None of that taking away with the one hand what is given with the other."
Then on the 2nd of December, he says:
"Let it be clearly understood that the Congress-League scheme represents the irreducible minimum which admits of no curtailment here or excision there and then which no more moderate demand can be conceived under the circumstances."
It seems to me, gentlemen, that a scheme more moderate than the Congress League scheme can be conceived and Mr. Surendranath Banerjea of to-day has conceived that (laughter). Then on December 12th, he says:
"Too long have we been given the shadows of things--empty forms--which may please the infantile mind, but which the adolescent nation spurns away as a child's plaything.... Not only should justice be done, but that the people should be convinced of it, ... not only should the Government be satisfied, but that the people should be convinced that a substantial measure of responsible government has been granted."
THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION.