SHALL WE UNITE?

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09415777229, 094055338

E-mail- [e-mail];[e-mail]

 

 

SHALL WE UNITE?

 

 

That the Conference that met in Bombay last week did not result immediately in uniting all parties on a common platform shows the difficulty of the task. The appointment of a committee to consider the ways and means of bringing about a union shows that the Conference does not consider the task to be hopeless or impossible. Indeed Mr. Jaisukhlal Mehta who moved that the committee should report on or before 15th December next had a very fair number of supporters. They were quite sanguine of immediate success. The cautious many, by fixing the date of the report at 31st March, if they have realized the difficulty, have also by implication thrown on the committee the burden of finding an acceptable solution. Writers in the Press can considerably help the committee by guiding public opinion in the right channel. The chief bodies to influence the committee are the Liberals, the Independents and the National Home Rulers.

The last led by Dr. Besant have practically accepted the position set forth in the agreement between the Swaraj Party and me and now ratified by the A.I.C.C. The difficulties in the way of the Liberals and the Independents are practically the same. They are: the creed, the transfer of all Council work to the Swaraj Party and the franchise. It is said that the creed is equivocal. I venture to deny the charge. It is recognition of the existing condition. It means swaraj within the Empire if possible, and without if necessary. It is intended to throw the burden on Englishmen of making it possible for us to be and remain equal partners in the Empire. It manfully declares the country’s ability to stand on its own legs as an absolutely independent nation, if it became necessary. Swaraj within the Empire is a Free State, a voluntary remaining in the Empire, ability to secede if India thought it desirable. Swaraj within the Empire must be a partnership at will between free nations.

This is a vital position which cannot be surrendered. Even if those who are guiding the Congress at the present moment desired to alter the creed to mean swaraj within the Empire only and therefore that of a subject State, the vast majority of Congressmen will decline to accept the humiliation. To aim at changing the creed in the direction desired by the Liberals and the Independents is to run counter to the present national temper. The only thing they can do is to join the Congress and attempt to convince Congressmen of the utility or the necessity of the change, even as Maulana Hasrat Mohani has been attempting to change the creed so as to make independence of British connection the only goal of the Congress. I respectfully submit that there is nothing immoral or harmful in the present creed. On the contrary, the admission that, at the present moment at least, we are impotent for independence may be open to the gravest objection from an ethical standpoint. No nation that has the will need be powerless for independence. In any case, I trust that all parties will recognize that the Congress has an electorate which can become insistent at times and that it is well that it is so.

What status the Swarajists should hold in the Congress is really for them to determine. They and the No-changers today dominate the Congress. If the Congress suspends non-co-operation, the Swarajists perhaps ipso facto become predominant. And if both the parties decide in the national interest not to divide the Congress, they must be recognized as joint and equal partners. What I have done is to recognize this simple and natural fact in the Calcutta agreement. If any party desires more, it can be obtained only by joining the Congress and appealing to the reason of the Swarajists or by educating the Congress electorate, and also by forming new electorates. The scope for widening the Congress electorate is infinite, and practically anybody can form Congress circles or committees, if he can find men and women of his way of thinking. The third objection is the franchise. If it were not for its novelty, it would not only excite any surprise, but it would be welcomed as the best franchise test. Had it been workmen who had been the most influential people and not capitalists or educated men and a property or an education test had been proposed, the powerful workmen would have ridiculed the suggestion and might have even called it immoral For they would have argued that while capital or education were the possession of a few, bodily labour was common to all.

My suggestion to make one form of labour, i.e., hand-spinning the test, may be valueless, may be fantastical, but it is neither immoral nor harmful to the nation. I hold that it is a positive gain to the nation, if thousands of men and women labour for the nation, even if it is for only half an hour every day. Nor need the wearing of khaddar dress cause any hindrance to any party entering the Congress. Khaddar has been given very great importance in the Congress organization for the past three years. Surely there can be no insurmountable objection on principle to the wearing of khaddar as a franchise test. Unless I am grievously mistaken, some of the best workers will find no zest in remaining in the Congress, if the wearing of khaddar and hand-spinning were not made a qualification for franchise. There are at present two parties in the Congress.

One has no faith in the Council programme as a means for attaining swaraj and is satisfied with the khaddar activity, till the country is ready for peaceful disobedience or non-co-operation. The other, while claiming to believe in the economic value of khaddar, believes that, if swaraj cannot be gained through Council-entry, at the very least some steps may be taken towards it and some check might be placed upon bureaucratic extravagance. I can see my way to avoiding a quarrel with the Swarajists by letting them go their way and by securing their co-operation in the khaddar programme to the best of their ability. I would beseech the Liberals and the Independents to appreciate the fact, which one man cannot alter. But this is certainly possible. Let the Swarajists, the Liberals and the Independents confer together and, if they come to the conclusion that khaddar is a spent bullet and that it is a mere mania of mine and if they do not succeed in convincing me of my error, I shall gladly stand out. I will not come in the way of their controlling and using the national organization for what they may consider to be the best interest of the country. I have been told by a prominent Swarajists that the khaddar programme is doomed to fail and that the Swarajists do not believe in it at all. I told him I did not share his disbelief.

I told him that the Swarajists had sincerely accepted it and that they would zealously work for it But assuming that the friend’s prognostication is well founded and that the khaddar cult is a dividing factor in the public life, the sooner the country is disillusioned, the better for it. I must be permitted still to cling to it, so long as I do not lose faith in it. But I may not be allowed to stop all national activities. I, therefore, give my earnest assurance that I shall not willfully stand in the way of any honourable means that may be desired by the committee for bringing all the parties together. I am deliberately putting myself under the influence of Swarajists, Liberals and Independents. I am humbly trying to learn and understand their viewpoint. I have no axe of my own to grind. I share their anxiety for the freedom of the country. My way is different from theirs. I would gladly go their way, if I could. Let all parties then make an honest and earnest effort to find a way out. Let them approach the deliberations of the committee with faith and determination to find a common platform. Let them approach them with an open mind.

A friend asks whether Congressmen should not postpone the alteration of the franchise, pending the result of the All Parties Committee’s investigations. I respectfully submit that a well thought-out programme cannot be lightly postponed. Three months, solid work cannot be thrown away for fear that the Khaddar programme may not be accepted by the Liberals and the Independents. If, however, the Committee finds that the khaddar programme is unworkable and really hinders real unity, the franchise can be easily amended by a special session. In my opinion, the interest of the country demands that each party should work out its own convictions, all the while allowing for possibility of error and consequent repentance and retracing.