Foreign Propaganda by C. Rajgopalachari

[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]

 

 

Foreign Propaganda by C. Rajgopalachari

 

 

Before the Non-co-operation movement, Indian political activity largely consisted of propaganda in Great Britain. A great deal of money, comparatively, was spent on it and was considered well spent. When Gandhiji took up the guidance of our national affairs there was a change of outlook. A grasp of the essentials of national strength was the first result of his programme and it marked all our political thought at the time. We understood the natural laws that governed the sanctions needed for the non-violent enforcement of national demands. An almost exclusive spirit of self-reliance was the natural consequence.

The cultivation of favourable opinion in foreign parts including Great Britain was valued at its correct worth and distinct efforts to that end were practically given up, and opposed vigorously whenever the question was raised. So intense was the work in India and so marked were the results that the tables were soon turned, and instead of Indians going to do propaganda in Great Britain and foreign parts, India attracted numerous foreign visitors; and the British Government was forced to undertake counterpropaganda in foreign parts. In India itself the Government had to give up its self-confidence and organize its own propaganda among the people in order to resist or at least postpone the effects of the national upheaval.

With the stoppage of aggressive non-co-operation, however, there has been a reversion in Indian thought. Slowly but steadily the cry for foreign propaganda is gaining in volume again. The internal situation also, namely, the difficulties in the way of united national action, has naturally led people to turn to ease outlets of activities abroad. To those who still hold to the creed of non-co-operation and who look to emancipation only from within, this turn of the national gaze and energy to East and West is a symptom of growing weakness and a cause for anxiety. The vision is bound to be clouded and constructive efforts are bound to be prejudicially affected by the growing tendency to this diversion. Not only does it divert attention but some of the best workers will be drawn bodily into this channel of pleasanter though futile work. Pre-non-co-operation foreign propaganda was mostly propaganda in Britain. But one of the permanent results of the efforts of these eight years is loss of faith in Britain. The last vestiges of faith that stuck to the British Labour Party have been also destroyed. The present harking back to foreign propaganda is therefore not for propaganda in England, but for the cultivation of contacts and friendship with other foreign nations.

We are told that it is very desirable to develop intimate association with the German and Russian people. We are told that the Latin races of Europe present a favourable field for propaganda. France, Italy, Spain and Portugal are mentioned. Even Scandinavia is not forgotten, being important neutral soil. We are told, again, that the need of the hour is to link India up with other countries suffering under like imperialistic exploitation. We are assured that the hope of India is a federated Asia rising against Western domination. This change of attitude in regard to foreign propaganda had naturally its echo in the proceedings of the All- India Congress Committee where foreign affairs dominated the atmosphere, and many resolutions were adopted calculated to form a basis for international friendships.

It would be narrow-mindedness, indeed, and show us to be lacking the spirit of culture and humanity to refuse to have dealings with other nations if we were better circumstanced. But what would be civilization and culture and broad-mindedness under favourable circumstances would bee mere helplessness under existing conditions and would lead to nothing beneficial. Friendship with other nations can grow and be beneficial only if as in personal friendships it is not cultivated on the mere expectation of advantages, all on one side. If we seek honourable friendship with others there must be something for us to give them while we seek something from them. If we are in effect truly unable to help others and only ask for something at their hands it would not conduce mutual esteem; nor can a healthy alliance grow. If we are able really to help others, it must be by a supreme effort of national assertion which can and must, if well directed, produce far more marked results at home. The nations, whose friendship we go to woo, must find something to learn or something to gain from close association with us. If we have going on amidst us some movement of dynamic value, some revolutionary effort or some great constructive activity worthy of copy or study on others’ part, we would be seeking friendship on honourable, if not equal, terms. But we cannot be ever living either on the capital of our ancient culture or on the history of the Gandhian movement. The link of mere friendship of slavery is not likely to be a real or useful bond.

Why do we turn to Russia, China or Turkey? It is to simply the greatness of the past history of these nations that attracts us. If that alone were offered we would hardly be interested. But it is because we believe that there are great movements now going on in those countries which furnish matter for useful study or admiring observation, that some of our people go to those countries. Similarly if we seek international friendship with such nations, we should have something to offer to them of value. Otherwise we would only be beggars and should expect to be treated no better. But then, it may be said, this is to ignore world politics. There are wars coming on. The nations of the world are ever seeking to subvert one another’s plans, and India is an important piece on the board. We are not so helpless internationally as we may be internally in our own affairs. This needs clearing up and plain talking. Are we in for a war and the formation of alliances with those likely to fight England, or do we expect other countries to go to war over us? If the powers abroad go to war, they do it with gunpowder and ships. Are we ever likely useful to participate as a nation in such war? Is it contemplated that India and other slave nations in the East may enter into a treaty, sometime in the future, to rise in revolt helping each other against the common foe? Is India to expect, under any contingency arising in a world war, to render active assistance to a belligerent power against England? What, to put only one argument, is the chance of our ever achieving anything in this way?

Is it practical politics of the remotest kind, disarmed as we are? We do not want arms, it may say: we can do a great deal by passive resistance. The only weapon in our hand is non-co-operation with the British Government during a war or peace. Here we come back to the old position. The Indian fight against England if it is to be by non-violent means depends entirely on its own strength and can never be converted into an international affair. In a non-violent struggle it is not easy, if at all possible, to obtain any material help from abroad it must be conceived and organized and fought only on a basis of complete self-reliance. Non-material moral help we can get from foreign countries. This we shall do not by any propaganda, foreign or domestic, but exactly in the measure that we do solid constructive work and develop internal strength.