THE INDIAN CRITICS

[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]

 

 

THE INDIAN CRITICS

 

 

 

I know that you are angry with me for my having been the supposed breaker of the negotiations with the Viceroy. You think I have made a hash of it. If I have done so, I was driven to it. I was disinclined to join the party. But I was wanted if only for my supposed influence over the masses. I went and spoke in accordance with the dictates of the inner voice. This ability to hear and obey that voice gives me whatever power I may have and has enabled me to render some little service to the country. You will not have me at this time of my life to change my course and listen to any other voice but the inner. And what is the offence that I have committed in common with Pandit Motilalji? Not to depart from the Congress instructions, not to depart from the terms of the now famous Delhi manifesto? It is well known that the terms mentioned therein, no matter by what name they are called, were binding on all Congressmen.

We broke on the very central point of Dominion Status. I make bold to say that the country has gained by the correct attitude Pandit Nehru and I adopted. Surely nothing will be lost by the Congress abstaining from participation in the Conference if the British Cabinet mean well. Let those that have faith attend, and if they bring anything worth looking at from the independence standpoint, the Congress will capitulate. The days of being satisfied with costly toys are over. It is the substance that India wants. British domination must cease. British administration, that is costing the country far beyond its means, must end now, not in the remote future. The vast majority of Congressmen believe that this cannot be had through any round table conference unless a proper atmosphere for it is created. Diplomatic language that may mean one thing for the British voter and another for the Indian peasant will never make India free. The British people must realize that the Empire is to come to an end. This they will not realize unless we in India have generated power within to enforce our will. The English have paid dearly for their freedom such as it is. They therefore only respect those who are prepared to pay an adequate price for their own liberty. The real conference therefore has to be among ourselves. Instead therefore of looking at the independence movement with hostility, the critics should bless it even when they cannot identify themselves with it. But perhaps they do not mind the independence propaganda so much as they mind the idea of civil disobedience. Will they have an armed rebellion instead? The Congress cannot stay its hands after having passed the independence resolution. It was no bluff, no showy nothing. It was a deliberate definite change in the Congress mentality. It is then as much up to the critics as to me to devise ways and means of achieving independence. There is undoubtedly a party of violence in the country. It is growing in strength. It is as patriotic as the best among us. What is more, it has much sacrifice to its credit. In daring it is not to be surpassed by any of us. It is easy enough to fling unkind adjectives at its members, but it will not carry conviction with them. I am not now referring to the frothy eloquence that passes muster for patriotism I have in mind that secret, silent persevering band of young men and even women who want to see their country free at any cost. But whilst I admire and adore their patriotism, I have no faith whatsoever in their method. They and I are as poles asunder. India’s salvation does not lie through violence.

I am convinced that their methods have cost the country much more than they know or will care to admit. Let them study the reforms which they claim were a result of their activity. Assuming that their claim is just, let them remember that the reforms have cost more than the country could at all pay. But they will listen to no argument however reasonable it may be, unless they are convinced that there is a programme before the country which requires at least as much sacrifice as the tallest among them is prepared to make. They will not be allured by our speeches, resolutions or even conferences. Action alone has any appeal for them. This appeal can only come from non-violent action which is no other than civil resistance. In my opinion it and it alone can save the country from impending lawlessness and secret crime. That even civil resistance may fail and may also hasten the lawlessness is no doubt a possibility. But if it fails in its purpose, it will not be civil resistance that will have failed. It will fail, if it does, for want of faith and consequent incapacity in the civil resisters. This argument may not appeal to the critic. I shall be sorry, if it does not. Even so, he will perhaps admit the purity of my motive. We must cease to dread violence, if we will have the country to be free.

Can we not see that we are tightly pressed in the coil of violence? The peace we seem to prize is a mere makeshift, and it is bought with the blood of the starving millions. If the critics could only realize the torture of their slow and lingering death brought about by forced starvation, they would risk anarchy and worse in order to end that agony. The agony will not end till the existing rule of spoliation has ended. I would have waited if I could have been convinced that the condition of the masses has undergone progressive amelioration under British rule. Alas, he who runs may see that it has progressively deteriorated under that rule. It is a sin, with that knowledge, to sit supine, and for fear of imaginary anarchy or worse, to stop action that may prevent anarchy, and is bound, if successful, to end the heartless spoliation of a people who have deserved a better fate.