An
Open Letter to My Countrymen
Page 3
The
first obstacle to our evolution is the internal dispute which has for
the moment wrecked the Congress and left in its place the hollow and
mutilated simulacrum of a National Assembly which met last year at Madras
and, deprived though it is of the support of the most eminent local
leaders, purposes to meet again at Lahore. It is a grievous error to
suppose that this dispute hung only on personal questions and differences
of a trifling importance. As happens inevitably in such popular contests,
personal questions and differences of minor importance intervened to
perplex and embitter the strife, but the real questions in debate were
those which involved the whole future development of the spirit and
form of self-government in this country. Were that constitutional in
procedure or governed by arbitrary and individual choice and discretion?
Was the movement to be progressive and national or conservative and
parochial in its aims, policy and spirit? These were the real issues.
The Nationalist Moderate party, governed by an exaggerated respect for
old and esteemed leaders, helped, without clearly understanding what
they did, those who stood for oligarchy, arbitrary procedure and an
almost reactionary conservatism. Personal idiosyncracies, preferences,
aversions settled like a thick cloud over the contest, the combatants
on both sides flung themselves on every point of difference material
or immaterial as a pretext or a weapon, the tactics of party warfare
were freely used and, finally, the deliberate obstinacy of a few Moderate
leaders in avoiding discussion of the points of difference and the unruly
ardour of the younger men on both sides led to the violent scenes at
Surat and the break-up of the Congress. If the question is ever to be
settled to the advantage of national progress, the personal and minor
differences must be banished from the field and the real issues plainly
and dispassionately considered.
The
questions of particular importance which divide the parties are the
exact form of Swaraj to be held forward as an ideal, the policy of passive
resistance and the form of certain resolutions. The last is a question
to be decided by the Congress itself and all that the Nationalists demand
is that discussion shall not be burked and that they shall not be debarred
from their constitutional right of placing their views before the National
Assembly. On the other points, they cannot sacrifice their ideal or
their policy, but their contention is that these differences ought not
in a free deliberative assembly to stand in the way of united progress.
The Swaraj matter can easily be settled by the substitution of “full
and complete self-government” for “self-government on Colonial
lines” in the Swaraj resolution. The difference as to passive resistance
hinges at present on the boycott resolution which the Nationalist party,
- cannot consent to sacrifice. But here also they are willing to submit
the question to the arbitration of freely-elected Congress, though they
refuse to recognise a close and limited Subjects Committee as the final
authority. It will be seen therefore that the real question throughout
is constitutional. The body which at present calls itself the Congress,
has adopted a constitution which is close, exclusive, undemocratic and
so framed as to limit the free election of delegates by the people.
It limits itself by proposing a number of articles of faith in a particular
form of words to every intending delegate before he can take his seat;
it aims at the election of delegates only by select bodies and associations
instead of the direct election of the people; it excuses many from the
chances of election and gives them an undue weight in the disposal of
the affairs of the assembly. These and similar provisions no democratic
party can accept. A Nationalist Conference or a Moderate Convention
may so guard its integrity, but the Congress is and must be a National
Assembly admitting freely all who are duly elected by the people. The
proposed passing of this reactionary constitution by a body already
limited under its provisions will not cure the constitutional defect.
It is only a Congress elected on the old lines that can determine the
future provisions for its constitution and procedure with any hope of
universal acceptance.
It
is not therefore by any manipulation of the Congress or Convention that
a solution of the problem can be brought about, but by the Provincial
Conference empowering the leaders of both the parties to meet in Committee
and provide for an arrangement which will heal differences and enable
the Congress to work smoothly and freely in the future. If there is
a minority who refuse to associate themselves with any such attempt,
the majority will be justified by the mandate of the Provinces in disregarding
them and meeting to carry out the popular wish. Once the lives are settled
they can be submitted to the free choice of a freely-elected Congress
for acceptance, rejection or modification. This will restore the Congress
on sound constitutional lines in which the bitter experiences of the
past may be relied on to prevent those mistakes of obstinacy and passion
which prevented a solution of the problem at Surat.
July,
1909,Calcutta
- AUROBINDO GHOSE
