|
<b{
CALCUTTA, May 30th, 1907 }
Bande Mataram { CALCUTTA, June 4th, 1907 }
Regulated Independence
Never before were the utter helplessness and the deplorable demoralisation of the Native Princes of India more clearly demonstrated than at the present moment when our political ideas and ideals are undergoing such a change. Writes the Daily News:— “It is gratifying to learn that some of the Native States are following in the wake of the Government of India for the suppression of sedition, if not political agitation altogether. News comes from Srinagar that His Highness the Maharaja of Kashmir is about to issue a proclamation warning his subjects against the pitfalls of the so-called nationalist agitation. We do not doubt that his brother rulers in the Punjab will emulate so good an example.” Some of us were at a loss to understand the cause of the Daily News‘s jubilation. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code runs as follows:— “Whoever by words either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards His Majesty or the Government established by law in British India, shall be punished with transportation for life.” So sedition in Kashmir is not sedition in British India; and by the attempts of the Kashmir durbar to suppress sedition one naturally understood attempts to suppress the endeavours of Kashmir subjects to bring into hatred and contempt or excite or attempt to excite disaffection towards the Kashmir durbar. But the Proclamation removed our doubt. We are asked to believe that the Maharaja of Kashmir, with a wonderful tact for self-effacement, was anxious only to protect the Government established by law in British India. The Maharaja’s tender solicitude for the safety of the Power which
Page – 473 had sold Kashmir to his ancestor and had, only the other day, condemned him unheard, was amazing indeed. But the matter did not end here. Following close upon the issuing of the Proclamation a durbar was held in Kashmir. Sir Francis Younghusband made a speech and the thanks of the British Government were conveyed to the Maharaja. The Maharaja, we are told, was so greatly affected that he could hardly find words to express his feelings, which is hardly wonderful considering the circumstances. He was able only to say that the tradition of his house was one of loyalty to the British Government. “This,” says the Hindu Patriot, “is as it should be.” We cannot understand the logic of the “oldest native paper in India”. Why should it be so? Did not the founder of the Kashmir house pay a very heavy price for Kashmir! True to a disgraceful understanding with the British Government, of which both parties ought to have been ashamed, Golab Singh— to quote Sir Thomas Holdich,— “deserted his Sikh masters and paid for Kashmir with money looted from the Lahore treasury”. So it was only “give and take”. But these pathetic and miraculous happenings appear more intelligible— and less pathetic— when we realise that though the voice is the voice of Jacob, the hands are the hands of Esau. And this fact becomes patent when we find that Kashmir does not present an isolated instance of such zeal on the part of Native Chiefs to safeguard the interests of the bureaucracy. If Kashmir can be made useful to suppress sedition, the Maharaja of Coochbehar can at least help in putting down the boycott. On the occasion of the distribution of prizes to the students of the Jenkins School the Maharaja of Coochbehar said that “schoolboys were ciphers in politics”, and warned them against the danger of rushing into the whirlpool of politics, or joining in any political movement. Boys must read and play and ought never to concern themselves with matters beyond their grasp, and about which, on account of their age and inexperience, they have not the capacity to form sound, mature and correct opinions. With Swadeshism His Highness declared his full sympathy but he “was totally, entirely and absolutely against boycott”.
Page – 474 If anything approaching the boycott movement was seen in his territory His Highness gave in clear, emphatic and unequivocal language to understand that he would adopt very stringent measures to put it down. It is a pity that it should have been made necessary for the Maharaja to be so clear, emphatic and unequivocal and we can only extend to him our heart-felt sympathy. But we cannot hold these Indian princes responsible for all they do or say. Their so-called independence is nothing more than a mere name. Though Lord Curzon called them his “colleagues and partners in the task of Indian administration” the truth was better expressed by Lord Dufferin who characterised the independence enjoyed by them as a “regulated independence”, regulated by whom and to what extent it is superfluous to say. The incubus of the British Resident is always there. And the results of his intervention— often disastrous to the Chiefs— were thus summed up by the Gaekwar of Baroda in the Nineteenth Century in 1901— “Uncertainty and want of confidence in the indigenous Government is promoted. The influence of the Raja, which is indispensable for the individuality of the States, is thereby impaired. The ruler being discouraged slackens his interest in the continuity of his own policy.” Then, of course, there are the annual visitations to relieve the States of their superfluous wealth and prove to the people that their Chief is no better than a pigmy before the vicegerent of the King of England. The attitude now taken by these Chiefs towards the spirit of Nationalism that is re-creating India, shows merely the degree to which the bureaucracy is determined directly and indirectly to stamp out the spirit. They have greater advantages in the States than in their own territory, for they can make the measures more thoroughgoing and rigorous than in British India and they can at the same time, through the Anglo-Indian Press, point to this rigour as a proof of the superior liberalism of British bureaucracy as compared with a native rule. This is indeed killing two birds with one stone.
Page – 475 A Consistent Patriot
Even Homer nods, and even the Hindu Patriot makes slips at times. Referring to the endeavours of the Kashmir Durbar to suppress “sedition” the Patriot wrote on the 22nd May:— “The Maharaja of Kashmir’s demonstration of fidelity is worthy of note. After upsetting the old law of the State against European settlements and earning thanks from the Masonic brotherhood for the great concession made to them, His Highness is extirpating from his dominions all sorts of `undesirables’ in a right autocratic spirit. But his brother chiefs do not seem ready to follow his noble example, and excepting the `enlightened’ Maharaja of Mysore, they may not care to do so. The Maharaja of Kashmir however is in right earnest. He has prohibited public and even private meetings of a revolutionary character, and is the pet of the bureaucracy for playing this sort of masterly activity.” But this attempt to imbibe the spirit of the age, perhaps, got a rude shaking from some quarter and the Patriot seized the first opportunity to rectify its “mistake”. On the 30th it again referred to the subject and remarked:— “The Maharaja of Kashmir’s loyalty and anti-sedition measures have elicited from the Viceroy a tribute of warm appreciation. A grand durbar was held at Srinagar to proclaim the Viceroy’s message of thanks. Sir Francis Younghusband, late of the Tibet Mission, delivered a sombre sermon bristling with references to the efforts of the Maharaja to keep down sedition, and overflowing with advice and good words which no doubt went straight and deep into His Highness’ heart and found a comfortable lodgement there. The Maharaja was so greatly affected that he could hardly find words to give vent to his feelings. He was able only to say that the tradition of his house was loyalty to the British Government. This is as it should be.” This indeed is as it should be. And it reminds us of the Hindu Patriot‘s sudden change of opinion in the matter of the site for the proposed Victoria Memorial Hall and other instances of the remarkable versatility and impressionability of this great organ of private opinion.
Page – 476 Holding on to a Titbit
When the Anglo-Indian Press has got a hold or thinks it has got a hold upon an opponent, it holds on to it like grim death. This peculiarity is shared by its pets and protégés. Sometime ago a vernacular paper in Maharashtra published an alleged interview with Mr. Gokhale in which that carefully moderate politician was actually represented as using expressions which might be taken for an incitement to rebellion. Mr. Gokhale repudiated the interview but the Nawab of Dacca and his Secretary of Comilla fame still persist in calmly ignoring the repudiation and attributing expressions to Mr. Gokhale which he never used. A similar spirit is being shown with regard to Srijut Bipin Pal’s repudiation of the Shaktipuja report. The Englishman, flattered probably by being preferred to the Daily News, was gracious enough, in a paragraph full of the most outrageous and insufferable impertinence, to acknowledge that Bipin Babu should not be held responsible for the “sins of the Bande Mataram“. Yesterday, however, it published lengthy letters in which its correspondents still insisted on this vicarious punishment. The Daily News also seems to have been piqued by not being noticed and tries to belittle the effect of Bipin Babu’s disclaimer. It even proposes to extend the principle of vicarious punishment much farther and make Bipin Babu responsible for the alleged utterances of a Madrasi speaker whom it gratuitously assumes to be his “associate”. We presume the Anglo-Indian journals consider themselves superior to the ordinary etiquette in such matters as observed in other countries; otherwise we should have imagined that a disclaimer by a public man of unauthorized reports of his utterances ought to be regarded as final. Whatever responsibility remains for the publication, now rests entirely on the Bande Mataram whose shoulders are quite broad enough to bear its own burdens unassisted. We have made our own explanation to the Indian public in this matter and we are quite indifferent whether Anglo-India official or unofficial is satisfied with it or not.
Page – 477 |