SWARAJISTS’ STATEMENT ON COUNCIL-ENTRY

[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]

 

 

SWARAJISTS’ STATEMENT ON COUNCIL-ENTRY

 

 

We are obliged to Mahatma Gandhi for the trouble he has taken to discuss with us the various points involved in the question of Council-entry and are indebted to his courtesy for the opportunity we have had of seeing an advance copy of the statement he has issued to the Press. The views expressed by him in the course of conversation and those embodied in the Press statement have all been considered by us with care and attention due to his great personality, but with all the reverence we entertain for him and his opinions, we remain unconvinced by his reasoning. We regret we have not been able to convince Mahatma Gandhi of the soundness of the Swarajists position regarding Council-entry. We fail to understand how such entry can be regarded as inconsistent with the doctrine of the Non-co-operation resolution of the Nagpur Congress.

But if non-co-operation is more a matter of mental attitude than of the application of a living principle to the existing facts of our national life with special reference to the varying attitudes of the bureaucratic Government which rules that life, we conceive it to be our duty to sacrifice even non-co-operation to serve the real interests of the country. In our view this principle includes self-reliance in all activities which make for the healthy growth of the nation and resistance to the bureaucracy as it impedes our progress towards swaraj. We are, however, anxious to end this fruitless verbal discussion making it clear, however, that Council-entry is and can be thoroughly consistent with the principle of non-co-operation as we understand that principle to be. We desire further to make it clear that we have not used in our programme the word ‘obstruction’ in the technical sense of English Parliamentary history. Obstruction in that sense is impossible in subordinate and limited Legislative bodies, such as the Legislative Assembly and Provincial Legislatures under the Reforms Act undoubtedly are. Possibly another word should have been found to convey our renaming. We may state, however, that our position is really not so much of obstruction in the Parliamentary sense as that of resistance to the obstruction placed in our path to swaraj by the bureaucratic Government. It is this resistance which we meant to imply when we used the word obstruction. This was clearly indicated in the way we defined and described non-co-operation in the preamble to the constitution of the Swaraj Party. It is the removal of such bureaucratic obstruction which we feel we must emphasize. This is the policy which we have hitherto followed in the Legislative bodies and it is this policy which must in future be more and more effectively directed to the varying needs and problems of our national life. Here again we are anxious to end all verbal discussion as to whether this can be aptly described as a policy of “uniform, continuous and consistent obstruction”. We are content to detail our policy and then leave it to our friends to give it a more appropriate name, should they so desire. In the light of this principle and policy, we would here state our future programme of action within and outside the Legislative bodies. Within the Legislative bodies we must continue:

To threw out budgets unless and until the system of Government is altered in recognition of our rights or as a matter of settlement between the Parliament and the people of this country. In justification of this step, all that we need point out are a few salient facts connected with the budget in the Central Government, which are more or less true of Provincial budgets also. Out of a total of 131 crores (excluding Railways), only 16 crores are votable. Further, out of the non-votable amount, as much as 67 crores, i.e., more than half the amount of the budget is for military expenditure. It is thus clear that the people of this country have a right to vote only on less than one eighth of the total amount of the budget, and even the exercise of this limited right is subject to the power of restoration in the Governor-General.1 It is, therefore, clear that the people have neither any voice in the framing of the budget nor any control over those who frame it. They have no power either over the raising of the revenue or its expenditure. On what principle then, may we ask, is it our duty to pass such a budget and take the responsibility of being a party to it? We have no doubt the support of many self respecting men in the country in holding, as we do, that it is, our clear duty to throw out such budget in all Legislative bodies, unless and until this vicious system is changed.

To throw out all proposals for legislative enactments by which the bureaucracy proposes to consolidate its power. It is conceivable that some good may incidentally result from a few of such measures but we are clearly of opinion that in the larger interests of the country it is better to temporarily sacrifice such little benefit rather than add an iota to the powers of the bureaucracy which already irresistible.

To introduce all resolutions, measures and bills which are necessary for the healthy growth of our national life and the consequent displacement of the bureaucracy? We heartily accept the suggestion made by Mahatma Gandhi in his statement and we think that the resolution mentioned by him in support of the constructive programme of the Congress should certainly be accepted by the Swaraj Party. The principle of self-reliance and resistance to the bureaucratic obstructions upon which we have hitherto acted, calls for their adoption, and if the constructive work of the Congress comes within the principle of non-co-operation, no less do these resolutions although they represent constructive activity within the Legislative bodies.

To follow a definite effective policy based on the same principle to prevent the drain of public wealth from India by checking all activities leading to exploitation. To make this policy effective we should take and occupy every place which is open to the members of the Central and Provincial Legislatures by election. In our opinion we should not only fill elective posts, but serve on every committee when it is possible to invite the attention of the members of our party to this important question and we call upon them to decide this matter as soon as possible. Our policy outside the Legislative bodies should be as follows: In the first place, we should give our whole-hearted support to the constructive programme of Mahatma Gandhi and work that programme unitedly through the Congress organizations. We are decidedly of opinion that our Council work must necessarily lose much of its strength without the backing of the outside constructive work; for it is not inside but outside The legislatures that we must look her the sanction without which the effective carding out of our Council policy is impossible. Indeed in the matter of constructive work the mutual support of both inside and outside activity must, in our opinion, give strength to the very sanction upon which we rely. In these connections we unhesitatingly accept the suggestion of Mahatma Gandhi regarding civil disobedience. We can assure him that the moment we find that it is impossible to meet the selfish obstinacy of the bureaucracy without civil disobedience, we will retire from the Legislative bodies and help him to prepare the country for such civil disobedience, if by that time the country has not already become prepared, and we will then unreservedly place ourselves under his guidance and work through the Congress organization under his banner in order that we may unitedly work out a substantial programme of civil disobedience. In the second place, we must supplement the work of the Congress by helping labour and peasant organizations throughout the country.

The problem of labour is always a difficult problem to solve in every country, but in India the difficulties are greater. On the one hand we must find out a way of organization by which we can prevent exploitation of labour by capitalists or by landlords, but on the other hand we must be on our guard to see that those very organizations may not themselves be the source of oppression by nursing extravagant and unreasonable demands. Labour undoubtedly requires protection, but so do industrial enterprises. Our organization must protect both from exploitation and the Trade Union Congress must be so organized as to be able to serve this useful purpose. We bold that in the long run the real interests of both and the country at large are identical. We feel happy that we have had this opportunity of putting our views before the country side by side with Mahatma Gandhi’s opinion; for we feel certain that the perusal will make it obvious that, notwithstanding some differences of view, there is an abiding and fundamental unity amongst both parties of the Indian National Congress. Both parties feel the necessity of working the constructive programme whether within or outside the Legislative bodies. In this direction, we feel confident, lies the germ of a fruitful alliance between Mahatma Gandhi and the Swaraj Party. Our joint effort in the same or different directions will furnish a fitting answer to the bureaucracy unwilling to recognize the rights and liberty of the Indian people, and we emphatically assert that, in our determination to work with the same object in the same or different spheres is expressed the determination of the Indian nation to bring the struggle for swaraj to a successful issue.