Chapter III: Part 3

In answer I say if I have understood the lesson of Indian history correctly, I consider that from ages past there was a movement of unifying the whole of India and I think through the many vicissitudes of Indian history, in the time of the Hindus, in the time of Mahomedan rule and now English rule, throughout the many vicissitudes that one idea stands out prominently viz., with each success, with every failure, India was growing more and more and becoming herself. I do not believe that in the old times in the ancient history of our country, there ever was one united India--India was never one whole under the Hindus at any time. I hold in great reverence and veneration all the activities of ancient India. India was great, but the great Indian nationality was in the making. We have profited by what was done in the ancient days, we have inherited all their culture but it is for us to widen that culture for the evolution of the great Indian nation. That day, gentlemen, is fast approaching. I ask you to consider critically the history of India.

WAS INDIA EVER ONE WHOLE

Can you point your finger to any period of Indian history in which there was an united India? I have failed to discover it. Take the Magadh Empire--that great empire which was built up and which perished in course of time. That empire did not bring out Indian unity to the fullest extent. Take the Mahomedan Empire--it did not--it strove for that and I fully appreciate that, that is the tendency of the Indian history from the earliest time to the present day. (A voice: in the time of Asoke?) Even in the time of Asoke there was not one whole united India; it was the domination of one country over the rest of India. The great Indian nationality of which I am speaking was not born then. I am not for belittling the glory of the culture of India under those empires--I have the deepest veneration for them and I say the purpose of Indian history is that throughout the ages, through every success, through every failure, through every battle which was won, through every battle which was lost, the history of India was working out her destiny and turning out the great Indian nation. To-day we see the vision of that glory (cheers). That which could not come to pass under the Hindu kings, that which was not brought about under the Mahomedan gentlemen, it is for us to consider now were we who represent modern India, whether it will be our glorious task to accomplish that if we fail--what of that?--others will come after us who will achieve this. But achieved it must be (Hear, Hear). The message of India must be given to the world.

The history of India is working out--is bringing out gradually the soul of India and the time will come--we may not live then, our children may not live then,--but I say the day will come when India will stand before the whole world in all her glory of spirituality. The unity of the Hindus and the Mahomedans and of all sects and creeds will be bound together in one great cultural ideal and will influence the civilization of the world (Prolonged cheers). Well, gentlemen, as I am dealing with Self-Government, the point of practical importance which arises is this; that is a scheme of self-government not only should there be perfectly autonomous provincial government but along that such a scheme should be made that all these provincial governments may be united in one central Indian Government because in this our desire for provincial autonomy, we are apt to forget the spirit of the history of India. That is the spirit of nationalism to-day.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE EMPIRE THE THIRD STEP

But what of the nationalism of to-morrow?--You have to think of the whole human race, and gradually, some sort of a federal government must be established. It may not be in a few years. It may be a long time yet but some sort of Government must be established, which may be called the Federal government of the whole empire, a government to which the British Parliament will send their representatives, a government to which the Indian Government, after it is federated and after it is nationalised and after it is made responsible, will also send her representatives,--a government to which Australia will send her representatives--a government to which Africa will also send her representatives.

FEDERATION OF ALL NATIONS THE GOAL

That is the future federal government of the British Empire and I say that as an ideal, we should cling to that and cling to that because we must not forget that the ultimate goal of human activity in every country is what the poet has described, a Parliament of nations, the federation of the world. That is an ideal which has got to be worked out. The time is coming when a definite scheme should be framed to work out as far as possible this great ideal.

THE DECLARATION OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

Gentlemen, many of you may have read the declaration of Policy issued by the Secretary of State the other day and may also have read the speech of His Excellency the Viceroy made with reference to that. Reading these two statements together, it is clear that the time has come when every educated man in this country should set about earnestly to frame a scheme for the introduction of self-government keeping in mind the ideal which we have before us and keeping in mind also the standard of practical politics. Now, gentlemen, if you have to frame a scheme like that, you will of course take into consideration the first point, _viz._, of provincial autonomy _i.e._, of each province. Let us think of Bengal at the present moment, Bengal must have a government which is representative that is to say, the people of Bengal will be the electors and they will elect their representative to this Government and the legislative Council is to regulate and control the executive. The Government officials that there are at the present moment, will be under the control of that Executive Department or in other words, every office and the government itself will be responsible to the people of this country. That is the first point you will have to consider. You will have to consider how you can bring about these things, the particular method according to which this must be worked out. Now, gentlemen, the second thing that you have to consider is how to federate these different provinces and connect them with the Central Government. These are the two important points which you have got to think about at the present moment and I invite your attention to a scheme which you must formulate amongst yourself. I have given you what my views are but you are not bound by these; you must form a committee of competent men to frame such a scheme and I think all the representatives of the districts should meet in Calcutta some time in November to discuss the scheme of self-government. We shall then adopt one scheme for Bengal in which the interests of the Hindus and the interests of Mahomedans will all be considered and we, the Hindus and Mahomedans of Bengal will present this scheme to the Secretary of State when he arrives here in November or in December.

DIFFICULTIES AHEAD

Gentlemen, I have told you what the ideal is according to my view, and I ask you to set about working it out. But you must not be negligent of the difficulties that lie in your way. And the first and foremost of these difficulties is the agitation of the Anglo-Indians who have formed themselves into the European Association for the purpose of trying their best to defeat the noble object of the Government of India (Shame, shame). Gentlemen, so far as the Government is concerned, it has declared its policy openly and clearly and if the European Association sets itself against this noble desire of the Government of this country it would be our clear duty to stand against the mischievous activity of the Association. (Hear, hear.) Gentlemen, I have dealt with their speeches and the absurdly exaggerated claims which they have made, at other places. I do not desire to repeat them again but you will find that these speeches are all couched in violent language and sobriety and judgment is conspicuous by its absence in almost all the utterances made at that meeting in Calcutta.

RACIAL RANCOUR

They have started this agitation by vilifying our leaders and attacking both the ideal and the method of the Home Rule movement of this country and I charge that the result of that is racial rancour which I say, it ought to be the endeavour of every honest citizen, be he Indian or be he European, or be he Anglo-Indian, to avoid. Gentlemen, I desire to give you just one or two specimens of that. This is how Sir Archy Birkmyre speaks of the activities of the people. I quote from his speech:--

"We should have been content to treat this agitation (i.e., our agitation) with the contempt it deserves, but we are confronted with the alarming fact that the Government is hauling down its colours before these lawless agitators."

Gentlemen, this statement professes contempt not only for the activities of the people, the unselfish and honest activities of the leaders of the people of this country but it also professes contempt for their own Government, (Cries of shame) as it refers to the actions of the Government, the noble actions of the Government in these words;

"But we are confronted with the alarming fact that the Government is hauling down its colours before these lawless agitators."

ARE WE LAWLESS AGITATORS?

Gentlemen, our agitation is described as the agitation of lawless people. I read through these speeches very carefully and I challenge any one of the speakers to find out a single utterance in Mrs. Beasant's speeches on the question of Home Rule, in her many pamphlets on this subject which may be characterised as violent. I challenge them to find out a single sentiment in any one of these utterances of Mrs. Besant which stands for lawlessness. I have read them carefully; these Anglo-Indian agitators have not. I have read them carefully and I say that Mrs. Besant has laid down clearly and emphatically that the agitation for Home Rule must be carried on lawfully and by the use of argument not by the use of methods which are against law. She has laid that down so often in her speeches that anybody who refers to that agitation as lawless has no excuse for such ignorance.

WHO ARE VIOLENT--WE OR YOU?

I will now give you another bit from the same speaker:--

"Most of you are aware of the quality or the language used by the Indian agitator when he wishes to libel British rule."

The quality of language used by the Indian agitator indeed! Well, gentlemen, you have read the speeches of these Anglo-Indian agitators and you have read the speeches of Indians who have addressed the country from time to time on the question of Home Rule. I ask you to compare the tone of these speeches and I ask you to say who are violent--they or we? I will give you one choice bit from Mr. Wigett. He says:--

"Can any one here say that in releasing Mrs. Besant the Government of India has exercised that power in a matter that we have a right to expect.... It is a direct invitation to further noisy and blatant upheavals of violent passion."

Well, that is the language of moderation. I shall pass by that without a comment.

"SPLENETIC BITTERNESS OF A POLITICAL SECT"

I will give you another from this gentleman's speech. Referring to the writings of Indians on the question of Home Rule and in support of our claim for Home Rule, this gentleman says:--

"Such writings do not represent the feelings of the people of Calcutta, or anything indeed but the splenetic bitterness of a political sect."

That is very choice language, gentlemen, "splenetic bitterness of a political sect." That is very moderate language indeed! I shall pass by this also without any comment. I come now to Mr. F. W. Carter.

OUR "UNSCRUPULOUS" METHODS

Referring to our activity, he says:--

"Unscrupulous methods and audacious claims of a few noisy agitators."

Mark the words--"unscrupulous methods and audacious claims." Our claims are audacious because we want to govern ourselves because we say that for the last 150 years there has been a bureaucratic form of government--bureaucracy has been tried and found wanting. This is an admitted fact now, admitted by politicians in England and by politicians in India--admitted by implication in the statement of the Secretary of State and the speech of His Excellency the Viceroy. That the Bureaucracy will no longer do and because we saw that the bureaucracy must be replaced by some sort of government which is self-government and which is responsible to the people of this country. We are told of the unscrupulous methods and the audacious claims of a few noisy agitators. That again is language of moderation and calculated to create (A voice: and preserve)--yes and preserve a "calm atmosphere." The idea of these Anglo-Indian agitators is this: that when they speak of us they can use the most violent language, they can incite racial bitterness, they can say whatever they like with the most perfect impunity but if any agitators, if any Indian patriot refers in the slightest degree to the evils of bureaucratic government in this country, they are at once a noisy lot who must be punished by the government.

ADDING INSULT TO INJURY

I give you another passage from Sir Archy Birkmyre again:--

"Of the loyalty and devotion of the fighting races of the Punjab, Sir Michael Odwyer has spoken in terms which everyone of us in this room will cordially endorse. But the spirit of the Punjab has not been manifested in other provinces." Gentlemen, so far as Bengal is concerned--and this speaker was speaking amidst Bengalees, so far as Bengal is concerned, I say, for anybody to charge that Bengal has not contributed to the war by money or by manpower is a libel on the whole Bengalee race. I say it is adding insult to injury. When did you allow the Bengalees to wear arms? When was it for the first time that you called upon them to wear arms and to go and fight our enemy? It was only the other day. Do you expect, does any reasonable man who wants to put forward reasonable argument expect that a whole people who have suddenly been called upon to take arms and march against an enemy, that they will at once, as if by a magic, turn out a very large army? Whose is the fault? Is it the fault of Bengal that to-day you do not find thousands and thousands, lacs and lacs of Bengalees fighting for the empire? Whose is the fault? You deprive them of their arms, you tell them that they are enemies (shame, shame), you declare to the world that they were never fit for military service and when suddenly you call upon them to take arms and fight, can anybody say that Bengal has not responded to the call sincerely, earnestly and if I may say, valiantly? I say a speech of this description is adding insult to injury. That is what these speakers say of the people of Bengal. Let me now place before you one or two passages which show their attitude to the government of this country when the government has resolved upon doing justice to the people of this country.

"MEDDLING MUDDLERS"

I quote from the speech of the Hon. Mr. Ironside. It is rather a long quotation but I am afraid that I must place this before you to bring out the quality of Anglo-Indian agitation. I hope you will bear with me. He says:--

"At any rate, we don't want any from the House of Commons, and I would commend this remark to Mr. Montagu, for we distrust them root and branch. At this distance we watch the unhealthy game which proceeds at Westminster and to honest men it is enough to make one weep for one's country; and I think, you will agree with me, gentlemen, that we have none of it here. This is no time for meddling, least of all from a representative of a Ministry who one and all by their words and deeds brought the old country to the verge of internal ruin, vilified honest men and patriots slithered into unprepared, and having made a mess of everything have hung on to their self-elected posts like limpets until a second time the destruction of the empire was nearly effected. We are not taking the same risk here. Mr. Montagu, I believe, started in a department created for the definite purpose of helping to win the war. Had it been of any use, I presume, he would have stayed there but being one of a party of meddling muddlers, he has found his way back to the Indian Office."

This is language of moderation applied to the Secretary of State for India who is entrusted by the British Parliament with the government of this country. I can assure you gentlemen if anything half as violent as that had been said by any one of us, this gentleman would have been furious and would have exhibited his fury ten times more; and the "Statesman" newspaper would have said that speakers who make use of such language should be punished by the State so that their speeches may not create disaffection. But when you call the Secretary of State a meddling muddler, I suppose that is allowable. When you heap contempt upon the whole of the British Parliament, I suppose it is allowable. If only an Indian says that the bureaucratic Government has been found to be wanting, it has failed in its duties, it has failed in its charge of the administration of this country, it is such violent language that the State must put down.

ANGLO-INDIANS TEACH THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

Then the same speaker goes on to say:

"You must remember that we have to teach the House of Commons before we can gain their ear and support."

I hope the House of Commons will be enlightened by the lessons which it gets from speakers of this description. (Loud laughter).

WHO BRINGS GOVERNMENT TO CONTEMPT

To turn again to Mr. Wigget--he says:--

"What an extraordinary spectacle!" referring to the release of Mrs. Besant and the regret expressed by Sir Michael O'Dwyer,

'Of a sentimental weak-kneed Government'

If this is not showing contempt for the Government I do not know what contempt is. This is not all: there is an alarming fact expressed in some of these speeches. Some of the speakers have stated that the civil servants and the military officers are entirely in sympathy with them in their resistance to any kind of self-government being granted to this country.

ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL AND MILITARY SERVICES WITH ANGLO-INDIANS?

Gentlemen, I shall place before you one passage from the speech of Mr. Carter and another from the speech of Sir A. W. Binning.

Mr. Carter says:--

"I appeal, therefore, to the Government on behalf of all Europeans whether engaged in trade and commerce or serving in Government employment.... I assure the Government that they are here in spirit."

Gentlemen, the Civil Servants were present in spirit at this meeting according to the statement of Mr. Carter! (Laughter).

And the other speaker says this:--

"Our claims, as put forward at present, will have the silent, but none the less effective, support of the Indian Civil Service and Military officers whose lot is cast in this country and who equally with us, view with grave apprehension the measures which we fear, on effort will be made to force on us."

Now, gentlemen that is absolutely startling. For myself, I refuse to believe this. I refuse to believe that the members of the civil service and the military officers who are servants of the King should so far forget themselves that they should express their sympathy with these Anglo-Indian agitators, express their views to them against the policy which has been declared by His Majesty's Government. I say, I refuse to believe this because if it were true, it discloses an alarming state of things. It shows this: that whatever the policy of the British Government may be, whatever the policy and the declaration of His Majesty's Government may be, His Majesty's servants in India may so combine and may so actively oppose people who stand up for that policy as perhaps to render that policy nugatory. I say, if it is true, it discloses an alarming state of things and I hope the Government will take note of the speeches and make an enquiry into this and if there is any truth in this statement, I ask the Government why should they allow their own servants to so conduct themselves as to represent unnecessary opposition to the declared policy of the Government, (Hear hear).

WHAT IS ANGLO-INDIANS CLAIM

Now, gentlemen, I have referred to the speeches to show to you how unreasonable in spirit, how violent in language those speeches were. But what is their claim? Why is it that just after the declaration of this policy by the Secretary of State in August and the speech of the Viceroy in September that they should assemble in a meeting and oppose that policy tooth and nail. The declaration contained only this: that some sort of responsible government is to be introduced in this country--nothing beyond that. Why is it that all the Anglo-Indians gathered together and began to denounce that policy before the details are published or worked out? What is the claim which they make? I shall read to you from the speech of Sir Archy Birkmyre which puts forward what that claim is. This worthy gentleman says:

"The greater part of the commerce of India the basis of her prosperity is controlled and financed by Britishers."

Mark the word gentlemen, "Britishers" not the Anglo-Indian community alone but the Britishers. He goes on:

"All the progress that India has made in recent generations is due almost entirely to British direction, British capital and British enterprise. The men who are responsible for the vast interests created by the British in India cannot sit down voiceless and idle when the danger confronts us that these interests will be sacrificed to appease the political appetites of mob orators and Home Rulers."

Does it stand to this that the introduction of any kind of self-government in this country, however safeguarded the different interests may be, means such a disregard of the interests of these Anglo-Indian Agitators that the Government must be forced to give up its honest desire of introducing such a government? I ask in all seriousness does the claim go so far as this?--The Anglo-Indian claim which is put forward at this meeting does it go so far to insist that no kind of self-government, however limited it may be, however safeguarded the different interests in the country may be, that no kind of self-government is to be introduced at all into this country because these Anglo-Indians brought money in the shape of capital to this country--a statement which requires examination--because they brought capital to this country that India must forever be destitute, must forever be deprived of any measure of self-government? If this is their claim, it is so preposterously unreasonable that it requires no refutation at all. But gentlemen, the claim is curiously worded.

DO ANGLO-INDIANS REPRESENT THE BRITISH NATION?

It is not a claim put forward on behalf of Anglo-Indians alone but it is a claim put forward on behalf of the Britishers, it is a claim by the people of England. I deny these Anglo-Indian agitators' right to represent the people of England. I deny that they have got any right to say anything on behalf of the people of England. If any plebiscite is taken to-day in England, I feel sure that there would be a vast majority in favour of the introduction of Self-Government to this country (Hear, hear.)

MUST WE BE DENIED HOME RULE BECAUSE YOU HAVE BROUGHT CAPITAL?

If this claim is based on the mere fact of their introducing capital in this country, you have to consider whether they have not been sufficiently profited by the introduction of such capital. Does it mean this then that because people bring capital to this country, because they find it profitable to do so, they would have the right to say to the Government: you shall not introduce Self-Government in this country? Have they the right to tell the people: look here, we have brought capital to this country, therefore, you shall not have any desire to quarrel with these Anglo-Indian agitators. We do not regard politics from that utterly selfish point of view from which they regard it.

THEIR ONLY CLAIM IS ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION

I am free to admit in any scheme of Self-Government which is framed and which is accepted by the people and the Government of this country, these Anglo-Indian merchants ought to be allowed to be represented, that is to say, I do not desire that any scheme should be framed which would disregard the interests of any class of people, whether Hindu, Mahomedan or Anglo-Indian, whatever the basis of the franchise may be. But I say that these people have got no right to dictate to the Government of India and to the people alike that they shall not have Self-Government. I ask my Anglo-Indian friends to consider this question from a little higher point of view. They must see that India cannot ever remain without Self-Government. They must see that at some time or other the voice of the people is bound to be heard and if they do their duty by this country, by which they have been profited to a very large extent, they ought to help in this work of Self-Government rather than oppose it. I call upon them again to stand on a higher platform and consider the question of Self-Government not in this way but more seriously and with more consideration for the interest of the people of this country.

STIRRING UP CONFLICTING INTERESTS

Now, gentlemen, there is another difficulty to which I must also refer. When there are so many conflicting interests in this country it may be that particular classes of people will be instigated to stand up against Home Rule. I blame no one in particular but I am placing before you a possible difficulty. Interested people may stir up the Namasudras and tell them "Look here, you are hated and oppressed by the people, the Hindus of Bengal, why should you assist them and help them to bring in Self-Government because if Self-Government is granted, the Hindus are bound to oppress you all the more?" Advisers may be found who will go to my Mahomedan brethren and tell them: "you are as yet backward in education, if Self-Government is granted to Hindus why they will be more powerful than you and they will look down upon you and oppress you." Endeavours of that description unfortunately are not uncommon in this country and at such a momentous period of our history the same attempts might be repeated. Gentlemen, it is your duty, under these circumstances, you who are educated to go to your less educated brethren, Hindus or Mahomedans and to expose before them the fallacy of any such argument.

THERE WILL BE NO ROOM FOR OPPRESSION IN OUR SCHEME OF SELF-GOVERNMENT

You ought to tell them that self-government does not mean the Self-Government of the Hindus; Self-Government does not mean the Self-Government of the Mahomedans; Self-Government does not mean the Self-Government of the Zemindars; Self-Government means Government by all the people of Bengal in which all interests are to be represented and if there are any classes who are depressed or oppressed, they ought to be told that the sooner self-government is introduced into this country the better for them (Hear hear): they ought to be told that we have no desire to restrict the franchise in any manner at all to the disregard of any such interest and if any kind of responsible government is introduced into this country, which is made responsible to the people, they will have the power in their hands to oppose any oppression or injustice in every possible way. They will have the power to return their friends to the Legislative Councils they will have the power to tell the people who oppose them: if you want to oppress us, if you go on in that way, it would be against the work of national development and you shall not have the power to do that. We are asking for putting the power into the hands of the people and are we to be told that these people for whom we are fighting in whose interest we are fighting for the last 30 years, that we are likely to disregard the interest of these people?

THE TEEMING MILLIONS ARE OF US

If we are not fighting for the teeming millions of India, can anybody tell me whom we are fighting for? Am I fighting for myself? If I am selfish, why should I bother about self-government? Why can I not attend to my profession, make money and go home and sleep? Why should I go all over the country and demand Home Rule which is the only means of uplifting the teeming millions of our country if I have not their interest at heart? If anybody says that the Nationalists who are fighting for Home Rule are doing so in their own interest I fling the lie to the slanderers teeth. I say we are engaged in a noble task and we shall not rest content unless such a kind of self-government is granted to this country which will keep alive the interest of every community, which will regard and safeguard the interest of every class of people in Bengal. We belong to the same race. They are of us. God give us strength to fight their battle! (Prolonged Cheers.)

(_Amrita Bazar Patrika._)

PROTEST AGAINST INTERNMENTS

_Under the Presidency of Mr. Chakravarty, there was an enthusiastic meeting of the citizens of Calcutta, in the Town Hall, on 5th March, 1918 when Mr. C. R. Das spoke as follows:--_

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, I feel thankful to you for giving me this opportunity to raise my voice in protest against this arbitrary and unjust piece of legislation. Indeed I feel at this moment that no argument is necessary to convince you of the injustice of this measure. Mr. Chakravarty has dealt with it so fully and elaborately and has put before you all the considerations with reference to this matter with such force and lucidity that it seems unnecessary to continue this argument. I will therefore take up the resolution which has been entrusted to me and place it before you with a few observations which I have to make. The resolution consists of 5 clauses. (Mr. Das then read the resolution.)

I will deal with the third clause first, because it admits in my opinion of no discussion at all. Take all the arguments which had been advanced by His Excellency's government; accept them all. And even then there can be no justification for the present policy of the Government. (Hear, hear.) Either there is evidence against these interned persons or there is no evidence. If there is no evidence against them there is an end of the matter at once. And if there is evidence against them, what justification can there be in not bringing them to trial? It only makes people suspicious that there is not sufficient evidence against them. If there is sufficient evidence what justification can there be, I repeat, in not placing them instantly before a court of justice for trial? The argument that the present machinery of justice is insufficient is an argument which no body believes. I say it will be a dangerous thing if the idea goes abroad that people are kept in jail, in police custody without being brought to trial, while the Government has evidence against them. I say it will be a dangerous thing if this idea goes abroad, because people will at once come to the conclusion that probably there is no such evidence which can secure conviction in a court of justice. I cannot conceive of a more dangerous consequence.

Let me now deal with the other clauses of the resolution. I am one of those who never believe in tinkering in the matter of legislation. Either this measure is just or unjust. If it is unjust, there can be no ground for keeping it on the statute book. The Chairman has put this case very clearly before you. He describes this Act as "lawless law." (Hear, hear). I want you to fully realise the meaning of that observation made by the distinguished chairman. I say that, behind that observation lies the fundamental objection which we have got against the Act. What is "lawless law"? Any law which is not based upon justice, of which the object is not to serve and secure that justice upon which the stability of society depends, must necessarily be "lawless law." It is something which is put forward under cover of law, which is not law, which offends again every principle of justice, which is a negation of justice and therefore negation of law (cheers,). We protest against this Act because it offends the fundamental rights of man. (Hear, hear). To be taken and kept in custody for an indefinite period of time without being told what evidence there is and without being brought to justice according to the law of the land ('shame, shame') is a denial of the primary rights of humanity. (Hear, hear.) This is "lawless law" (prolonged cheers.)

You must realise what this Act is. I desire to read some portions of it to you, because many of you are not lawyers and probably do not know what grim injustice lies behind the apparently innocent expressions which you find in this Act. It is called the Defence of India Act--an Act for the public safety and yet public safety is nowhere defined. It is a vague generality (Hear, hear.) The public denounce it (hear, hear) people do not want it (hear, hear.) Is it to be forced down the throat of the public--this Act which is based upon grievous and intolerable injustice? (Cries of 'no' 'no'--loud cheers).

Let us follow the text of the law still further. This Act gives power to certain officials "civil or military,"--when in the opinion of such authority there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that any person has acted, is acting or is about to act in a manner prejudicial to the public safety to direct that such persons shall not enter, reside or remain in any area specified in writing by such authority or that such person shall reside and remain in any area so specified or that he shall conduct himself in such manner or abstain from such act, etc., etc. How beautifully vague! (Hear, hear.) These are admittedly innocent words; and when the Act was passed was there any one amongst us present here to-day who had the slightest idea of the use to which this Act might be put? Who at that time ever dreamt that this Act would be used for taking away young lads from their homes, keeping them in prison for days and months, keeping them in solitary cells and for putting them to indignity after indignity? Was this the intention of the legislature when it was passed? One can understand a war measure, one can understand that drastic legislation is necessary at the time of war when the enemy is at the gate. But is it just to take away young lads from their homes, from their mothers' arms, as it were (shame, shame) and keep them imprisoned ('shame,' 'shame') without telling them why, without bringing them to justice ('shame,' 'shame'--loud cheers)? Is any argument necessary to demonstrate that such an act is oppressive and must be abrogated? (Hear, hear--loud cheers). The answer is necessity, which Lord Morley has characterised as the old familiar plea of tyrants, (shame, shame, hear, hear--loud cheers). Law is necessary for the preservation of society (Hear, hear,) but not this thing which you call law (Cheers). Could any law be more arbitrary, more unjust than this Act? (Cries of 'no.') I ask you to consider this plea of necessity again. Surely it is not for defending India against the enemy, not for defending Bengal which has suffered most under this oppressive legislation (Cries of 'shame,' 'no,' 'no'). People who suffer and groan under this repressive legislation may easily misread and misunderstand your real object and think that it was intended to crush that hunger for liberty, which no bureaucratic government can tolerate for one single moment (loud cheers).

This policy as the Chairman has reminded you began in 1905 with those illegal circulars which you may remember. Those circulars then, as you all know, led to a good deal of misunderstanding. There were circulars against the shouting of 'Bandemataram' and various circulars directed against students. Some people thought that the object of these circulars was also to prevent our self-development and to suppress our growing hunger for liberty (loud applause). I ask the Government, can you blame the people who suffer from such injustice, if they misunderstand your object and misconstrue your action? (loud cheers.)

We feel it is our bounden duty to raise our voice of protest against this Act. The object ascribed is wrong. What is the real object? They say "there is a vast conspiracy in the country." My answer is I admit it I know and believe and I am sure of it as sure as I am standing here to-night, that there is a revolutionary party in Bengal. But what then? Do you think that you will be able to suppress that revolutionary party in that way? Has revolution ever been checked by unjust legislation? Give me one instance from history where the Government has succeeded in putting down revolutionary movements by oppressive legislation. I admit that the thing is an evil. I admit that the activity of the revolutionary party is an evil in this country which has to be eradicated. But what is the duty of the Government? Is it not their duty to take such step as will effectually eradicate it? (Hear, hear.) Does the Government really believe that the revolutionary party wants any other foreign power in this country? (Cries of 'no''no'). I venture to think that they do not. If not, what do they want? Has the Government ever enquired into the causes which led to that revolutionary movement? From 1905 we have been hearing of it, up to now repressive measure after repressive measure has been passed (cries of shame, shame), but has any attempt of any kind whatsoever been made to discover the real causes of this revolutionary movement? (Cries of 'no' 'no'). I may tell you as I have told many of those in authority that I know more about these people than probably anybody else in this hall. I have defended so many of the cases, and I know the psychology of their mind, I know the cause of this revolutionary movement is nothing but hunger for freedom. (Hear, hear.) Within the last 150 years what have you done to make the people of this country free or even really fit for freedom? Do we not constantly hear that we are not fit for self-government ('shame' 'shame') that we are illiterate, that we are not sufficiently educated? (shame, shame.) May I retort by asking "you have been here for the last 150 years, with best of motives, with the object of making us fit for self-government? Why is it then that you have done nothing to this end?" (loud cheers).

This is the psychology of the revolutionary movement. Our educated young men see that nations all over the world are free. They compare their position with the position of other nations, and they say to themselves "why should we remain so? We also want liberty." (Cheers). Is there anything wrong in that desire? Is it so difficult to understand their point of view? Do we not all know this hunger for liberty? These young men burning with the enthusiasm of youth feel that they have not been given any opportunity of taking their legitimate part in the government of their country, in shaping the course of their national development. Give them that right to-day, you will hear no more of the revolutionary movement (loud cheers). "Give them that right to-day, tell the people of this country here it is, we mean to change the system of Government, the government will be yours (loud cheers) government of the people and by the people, work for the good of our country, build up your nationality, shape the course of your history" (loud and prolonged cheers), and I guarantee that from the next day the revolutionary party will cease to exist (Hear, hear, loud and prolonged cheers). I have said this. Our leaders have said this over and over again to those in authority, but we have not been listened to.

On the contrary we are told that the only remedy is the Defence of India Act. ('shame,' 'shame'). We have been told that political crimes have decreased, since the passing of this Act. I say it is not so. Overtacts are not the only measure of political crimes. How could political crimes have decreased when disaffection has increased? (Hear, hear). Members of the revolutionary party may remain grim and silent, but I am sure every case of internment under this Act increases the volume of discontent and disaffection in this country. Does not that strengthen their hands? This is the real danger (Hear, hear). It is acting like poison and eating into the vitals of our nationality (Hear, hear). I protest against this Act as it is a menace to our liberty (Hear, hear), I protest against this Act as it is a menace to our loyalty to the empire to which we belong. (Hear, hear, loud and prolonged cheers).

There are people in this country who will tell you that the Government will never repeal this Act. So my countrymen I say, "Do not be disheartened." (Hear, hear). I believe in my heart of hearts that once the people of this country unite and raise their voice, the voice of a united nation, there is no power on the face of the earth which can resist it, (loud and prolonged cheers). Let us all say, "Repeal this Act, we will not have it." (Hear, hear). Let this cry reach the country, every village, every town; let this meeting be followed up by hundreds and thousands, let us all be united in our demand for the repeal of this Act and I say this Act shall be repealed, (loud and prolonged cheers).

INDIAN DEPUTATION TO ENGLAND

(Under the Presidency of Babu Motilal Ghose, a public meeting of the Citizens of Calcutta was held on the 18th March, 1918, at Professor Ramamurti's Pavilion, Bow Bazar Street, to support the Indian Deputation to England, when, Mr. C. R. Das in moving the resolution "That this public meeting accords its hearty support to and records its full approval of the deputation, consisting of among others of Lokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the Hon'ble Mr. G. S. Khaparade, Babu Bebin Chandra Pal, the Hon'ble Mr. B. V. Narasimha Iyer, Mr. Manjeri Ramier, Mr. Syed Hussain, Mr. G. Joseph, Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, Mr. N. C Kelkar, Mr. R. P. Karandikar, Babu Jitendralal Banerjee and Pandit Iqbal Narayan Gurtu," spoke as follows):--

Gentlemen,--There are two points which are involved in this resolution. The first is about the fitness of the gentlemen whom we have selected. I need hardly say that these gentlemen are in the highest sense the representatives of this country and I have not the least doubt that if the votes of our countrymen were taken--the votes of the uneducated and the educated, of all classes and communities in this country,--there cannot be the least doubt that every one of these gentlemen would have been elected.

Then comes the question why are we sending these gentlemen to England at a time when the journey is not safe. The answer to that question is not very difficult. We are passing through a very critical period in our history. We feel, every one amongst us who thinks of his country feels, that self-government cannot be delayed any longer. If self-government is denied to us it is certain that the growth of our nationality, and the development of Indian manhood will all be stopped. It is a matter of absolute necessity that within a short time, I say within one year or two, we must have self-government (cheers)--government responsible to the people--or we cannot exist as a nation. Now, what are the impediments? We have found out in the course of the last 30 years that the Bureaucracy in this country will not grant us anything which is at all substantial. Gentlemen, on one occasion I had the hardihood to say this before a high official and I was asked why did I say it. I will tell you what my answer was. I said and I repeat that within the last 30 years there never has been a reform proposed which had not been opposed and defeated by the Bureaucracy (hear, hear). If you consider for one moment the history of the last 30 years what do you find? You find that the noble policy of Lord Ripon was opposed by the Bureaucracy, you find that local self-government for which Lord Ripon fought, although nominally granted to us, was in reality denied to us. If you consider again such a simple reform as the separation of the Executive and the Judiciary what do you find? You find that Viceroy after Viceroy recommended it. You find statesman after statesman in England recommended it; yet, what is it which has prevented such a useful reform being put through? My answer is, it is the Bureaucracy in this country. (Shame, shame). Think again of Lord Morley's reforms which is called the Minto-Morley reforms. I said to this high official that this scheme was something when it left the shores of England, but it became absolutely ridiculous when it got into the hands of the Indian Bureaucracy (Shame, shame.). I was then asked why did I say so? My answer was and my answer is because I have not got a vote under that scheme and I pointed out that Sir S. P. Sinha, who was considered worthy enough to be appointed a member of the Executive Council was not a qualified voter either (shame, shame.) Under these circumstances are we not justified in saying that that scheme was rendered absolutely ridiculous when it got into the hands of the Indian Bureaucracy? (cheers.)

It is plain, therefore, that you may agitate as long as you like; you may demand your right as you have a right to demand, but you will not get the Bureaucracy in this country to support you. You must, therefore, go to their masters. Our demands must be carried across the seas to the great British Democracy (cheers). We want to be told why is it that we are not fit for self-government? I have said on other occasions that I do not ask for any particular kind of right which requires any elaborate consideration. I want the right which every nation on the face of the earth has--the right to build up our own constitution (cheers). I do not care about the details of the scheme just now. You can discuss them fully when the time comes. The question at present is a very simple one. I want our representatives to go to England, and tell the British Democracy that, we want nothing more, nothing less, than, the right to build up our own constitution,--a constitution which alone will enable us to secure the development of our nationality, a constitution which is absolutely necessary for the development of our manhood. Our representatives must go to England and tell the British people that the men on the spot are no longer to be trusted (hear, hear)--they must plead our case and they must insist on our rights (cheers).

If we find that we are not to get self-government, we have at least the right to get an honest answer. Let the British Democracy say if it likes, that this war is a war of liberation of humanity, but liberation of humanity does not include the liberation of India. If that is the view of the British Democracy let them tell us so. We won't be content with excuses and pretences. Gentlemen, when I consider the objections put forward to the grant of self-government, I can hardly keep my patience. What is it that they say? They say we are not educated enough to get self-government. My answer is: whose fault is it? For the last 150 years you have been governing this country, and yet you have not succeeded in educating the people of this country to such an extent that they may be fit for governing themselves. Do we not know that Japan was made only in 50 years? You have had 150 years. Why is it that at the end of that period we are told that we are not fit to govern ourselves? The very statement fills us with apprehension. As days go by, we will be rendered more and more unfit. No gentlemen, nobody really believes that the time has not come. It is a matter of immediate necessity and we must have it (cheers).

Then we are told, we are divided between many sects. We follow different religions, we have got different interests to serve and so on. Arguments are piled upon arguments in this way--it is always easy to argue and we at any rate who belong to the profession of law, know that it is always possible to argue. (Laughter). We all know that though vanquished, one can argue still (laughter). But do we not know, from the history of civilization, that directly you make people of different classes, of different religions, and of different interests, work together, work for a common good, do we not find that unity is brought about more successfully from the very fact of having to work together than by any other means? Therefore if you say that we are not fit for Self-Government, because we are divided in our interests, and in our religions, my answer is that self-government and self-government alone is the remedy of that. (Hear, hear.)

Then we are told that there is a revolutionary party amongst us and therefore we cannot be trusted with self-government. I have said elsewhere and I say again that I am not one of those who deny that there is a revolutionary party. But if you consider that question for the moment, you find that the only remedy which is possible, the only remedy which will effectually eradicate the revolutionary movement, is, the grant of self-government (loud cheers). I say this to the Government--you have been troubled over this revolutionary movement for so many years now--you suspected it in 1905. Have you ever made any effort to understand the psychology of that movement? Have you ever appointed any commission to enquire into the causes of this revolutionary movement? No. And yet, we have to take it that you want to eradicate it by repressive legislation (shame). My answer is that repressive legislation can never put an end to a revolutionary movement--it is only by satisfying their legitimate desire, it is only by satisfying their hunger, as I said the other day, for liberty that you can put an end to it. If you understand that problem you will find that the sooner self-government is introduced into this country it is better. I say it is better not only from the point of view of us Indians, it is better from the point of view of the British Democracy also, and that is what I desire that our representatives should tell them. It is the interest of India, it is the interest of England--it is really the true interest of both countries which will be served by the grant of self-government (loud applause).