-29_Bengal and the Congress.htm

Bengal and the Congress

THE dissensions in the Congress have been a severe test of the capacity of the Indian people to act politically under modern conditions. The first necessary element of democratic politics is difference of opinion, robust, frank, avowed, firmly and passionately held, and the first test of political capacity in a democratic nation is to bear these differences of opinion, however strong and even vehement, without disruption. In a monarchy differences of opinion are either stifled by an all-powerful absolute will or subordinated and kept in check by the supreme kingly arbiter; in an aristocracy the jealousy of a close body discourages free opinion and its free expression; in a bureaucracy stereotyped habits of action and method lead to a fixed and inelastic way of thinking and difference of opinion, when tolerated, is kept by the exigencies of administration private and largely ineffective. It is democracy alone that demands free divergence of opinion in politics and open propagandism and debate as the very breath of its nostrils. The tendency to democracy creates freedom of speech and thought and these in their turn hasten the advent of democracy. All attempts to silence by force or evasion important differences of opinion are anti-democratic and though they do not necessarily show an incapacity for government, do show an incapacity for democratic politics. The democratic tendency in humanity is and has long been pressing forward victoriously to self-fulfilment and the modern attempt of the banded forces of autocracy, bureaucracy, plutocracy and theocracy to turn its march can only result in its growing stronger by the check and urging forward with greater impetuosity to its goal. It is therefore the democratic tendency and the democratic capacity which must be accepted and shown by any nation which aspires to go forward and be among the leaders of the world. In the matter of the Congress it is only Bengal, so far, that has shown the democratic capacity of being able to meet and discuss and to a certain extent work together in

spite of grave and even fundamental differences. To a large extent this is due to the fact that all parties in Bengal have some common ground. Just as the different parties in a well-organised country, even when they differ in everything else, have this foundation of union and common tolerance that all are desirous of the freedom, greatness and sound internal condition and development of their nation, so we in Bengal are all agreed in holding the development of a well-organised, self-sufficient and self-governing people as the immediate and ultimate object of all our politics. This is only to say that Bengal has attained earlier than other provinces to political perception and sound political instincts. There are forces of disruption in Bengal as everywhere else, but it says much for the capacity and insight of the mass of the educated class that these forces have been overborne and Bengal preserves her unity. The credit is due much more to the people themselves than to the leaders on either side, and this itself is the healthiest sign of all and the guarantee of democratic development. When the people are wiser than their leaders and wise men, the democratic future of a country is assured. Men of great gifts and strong character are often carried away by their eager perceptions and at such moments it is the sound common sense of a capable democracy that sets right the balance. It was this common sense that saved the situation after Surat. The people had the instinct to desire unity and the good sense to see that unity was not possible or, if possible, was not worth having by the sacrifice of the movement which Bengal had initiated. That such an unthinkable repudiation would have been the first result of surrender to the Convention leaders of Bombay and Madras, has been sufficiently proved by the determined rejection of the Boycott resolution at the meeting of the Convention last December. The Pabna resolution for an United Congress was therefore so framed as to leave the Convention Committee a door open for reconciliation. They rejected the opportunity on a constitutional technicality of a purely verbal character and of doubtful validity and proceeded to show the honesty of this sudden passion for scrupulous constitutional procedure when they imposed a constitution on the body they chose to call the Congress without allowing it to be submitted

for acceptance or amendment by that body. The resolution at Hughly ought to be differently framed so as not only to make an United Congress possible but to bring it about so far as Bengal can help towards that consummation.

In Bengal there are three classes of opinion as to the best way of meeting the difficulty. There is a small section of the Moderate party which desires the Convention Congress to stand and the Nationalists to be excluded. There are two courses open to this minority. They may insist on the Bengal Provincial Conference and the District Committees accepting the body created by the Congress Committee as the real Congress and on their loyally following the rules and the instructions of this Congress and its Provincial Committee. If that were accepted the Bengal Provincial Conference would become a Moderate organisation and, while commercial Swadeshi would be preserved, the Boycott would disappear from the avowed programme of Bengal. But we do not think anyone will have the hardihood to make this proposal in so many terms and, if any ventured so far, it would be without any chance of popular acceptance. A more probable course is for this minority to agree to a vague and easily evaded resolution which they will have no intention of accepting as a guide to conduct and to oppose the passing of any more definite resolution on the ground that Bengal ought to preserve its own integrity and leave the rest of India to its divisions. The object they would aim at is to leave the Convention and its Committees to figure as the real Congress and Congress Committee and themselves be free to join them without popular disapproval. But the inevitable consequence would be that the Nationalists will be compelled to erect another body which would represent their interests. The erection of a rival National Congress at Nagpur last year was prevented by the Government, fortunately, we think, for no such body could really claim to be a National Assembly any more than the Convention can justly claim that character. But if an United Congress proves impossible, the Nationalists cannot allow the Convention unchallenged to delude the world by pretending to voice authoritatively the sense of the Indian nation.

A second section of opinion is that of advanced Moderates

and among these we find two ways of thinking. Some lay stress on the unconstitutional conduct of the Convention Committee in forcing their constitution on the Madras Convention without submitting it to discussion and seemed to think that by passing it through the next sitting the constitutional defect will be cured. They seem to forget that it will be a Congress elected under this unconstitutional constitution to which the question will be submitted. In effect, therefore, a body unconstitutionally elected will sit to validate the unlawful law under which it was born and so cure its own unconstitutional character without getting rid of the initial and incurable defect which prevents it from sitting at all. The constitutional difficulty will not be met and the political difficulty will remain as serious as ever, for the Nationalists would still be excluded and the menace to our unity in Bengal would increase every year. Others of the advanced Moderates see more clearly and can understand that only a freely elected Congress, as freely elected as the Hughly Conference will be, can accept this constitution or form any other. Any resolution passed on this subject must therefore contemplate a freely elected session and the submission to it of any constitution proposed or drafted for the better organisation of Congress procedure and Congress affairs.

The third section of opinion is that of the Nationalist party. Immediately after the fracas at Surat, on the same day indeed, the party became acutely sensible of the nature of the catastrophe which had occurred and its first step was to take an attitude which might leave the way open to reconciliation; and this attitude they maintained at all the subsequent Conferences where they were either represented or dominant. We do not agree with Lala Lajpatrai’s suggestion that the Congress should always remain in the hands of the Moderates; a popular body must remain either in the hands of the party which numerically predominates or be run by a joint body representing them proportionately to their numbers. But the Nationalists would not deny the name of Congress to a body merely because its administration was in the hands of a single party. They refuse it because that body by a constitution passed without right or authority excludes a powerful section of opinion in the country and pretends to be a National

Congress when it is really a party organisation. If the Convention were to consent to a free election and a free constitution, the Nationalist Party would not allow a matter of nomenclature, however important, to stand in the way of reunion. But the Convention constitution is not free. It is in the first place a close oligarchical constitution seeking to limit the right of election to a few privileged bodies affiliated to itself. Even if this reactionary limitation were to be confirmed by a freely elected Congress the Nationalists would have no cause of complaint, for they would still be free to organise a party institution which would spread the knowledge and appreciation of democratic principles and get these limitations abrogated from within the Congress itself. But the Constitution is also not free in virtue of the eligibility to delegateship being limited to those who can sign a declaration of faith specially designed to exclude the advanced school of patriotism. This limitation is vital. A National Assembly cannot bind itself by any creed but the creed of patriotism which is understood and which it would be futile to express. The Nationalist Party cannot accept the limitation of delegateship by an exclusive creed. They would not seek to bind it by their own creed, still less can they accept a creed which contravenes their avowed principles. The Congress may always pass a resolution expressing its aims and objects. That is merely the opinion of the majority and can always be changed if the minority becomes the majority. But a personal subscription to views one does not hold is unthinkable to any man of honour and probity. These are the three parties and their views. The election of a free Congress is the only possible way to their final reconciliation, the omission of the creed the only condition of the continuance of an United Congress. It is for the good sense of the people at large to decide between these conflicting views and determine what is best for Bengal and the nation.