SIR S. P. SINHA, K.C.I.E., President, Indian National Congress. THE HON. MR. MAZR-UL-HAQUE, BAR-AT-LAW, A MONTHLY PERIODICAL DEVOTED TO THE DISCUSSION OF ALL TOPICS OF INTEREST. The Congress Presidential Address. BY THE HON'BLE MR. V. IR Satyendra Sinha's address was marked by the earnest and passionate patriotism which we have learned to associate with officials as well as non-officials in Bengal. When he referred to the throbbing pain in the soul of awakening India, or spoke of hope coming where despair held sway and faith where doubt spread its darkening shadow, one not only heard the poetical language of the Bengali, but saw in his eye the fire of the patriot. He touched the hearts of his audience when he affirmed that the government of the people, for the people, and by the people was the only form of self-government which would satisfy the aspirations of India. In fact, so complete was the accord between him and the thousands who eagerly listened that every one must have felt that his own thoughts were finding clear and warm expression in such a passage as this:-"Does any reasonable man imagine that it is possible to satisfy the palpitating hearts of the thousands of young men who, to use the classic words of Lord Morley, leave our universities intoxicated with the ideas of freedom, nationality and self-government with the comfortless assurance that free institutions are the special privilege of the West? Can any one wonder that many of these young men, who have not the same robust faith in the integrity and benevolence of England as the members of this Congress, should lose heart at the mere suspicion of such a policy and, driven to despair, conclude that the roar and scream of confusion and carnage is better than peace and order without even the distant prospect of freedom?" When again Sir Satyendra, in manly and deliberate tones concluded with the sentence: "I say with all the earnestness and emphasis that I can command that, if the noble policy of Malcolm and Elphinstone, Canning and Ripon, Bright and Morley, is not steadily, consistently and unflinchingly adhered to, the moderate party amongst us will soon be depleted of all that is fine and noble in human character," the thunder of applause that greeted the last words seemed. the symphony of ten thousand eager voices echoing the solemn warning so that it may be heard by all who are concerned, S. SRINIVASA SASTRI. No. 1 The part of the address which commanded universal approbation was the one in which the rights of Indians to bear arms and to positions of command in the army were advocated. The Indian case in this respect was put forth with telling conciseness and unanswerable cogency. It was the keen dexterity of a lawyer which found a handy argument in the risks and perils that Indian officers of the Criminal Intelligence Department have to face. Sir Satyendra justly rebuked the maligners of our nation who assert that in the absence of the English neither a rupee nor a virgin would be left in some parts of the country as being, albeit unconsciously, maligners of the British nation as well. He said he could conceive of "no more scathing indictment of British Rule. A superman might gloat over the spectacle of the conquest of might over justice and righteousness, but I am much mistaken if the British nation, fighting now as ever for the cause of justice and freedom and liberty, will consider it as other than discreditable to itself that after nearly two centuries of British Rule, India has been brought to-day to the same emasculated condition as the Britons were in the beginning of the 5th century when the Roman legions left the English shores in order to defend their own country against the Huns, Goths and other barbarian hordes." It was but natural, and the President of the Indian National Congress should have expected, that his pronouncement on self-government for India would be received with different feelings by different sections of his countrymen. The cautious politicians welcomed it as an attempt to reconcile what is best in the great aspirations of the hour with what is most generous and responsive in the counsels of British statesmanship made by one whose inherent authority to speak on the subject has been enhanced by his having seen the affairs of the Empire, though only for a brief period, from the inside. The more eager spirits, on the other hand, regarded it with mixed feelings. They could not but be thankful that he established on an unassailable basis the claim of the people of India to full autonomy within the Empire both as a birthright and as derived from repeated pledges and declarations of Imperial policy. They cheered him to the echo when he interpreted His Imperial Majesty's message of sympathy and of hope as a message of sympathy for political aspirations and hope for their ultimate fulfilment. They were thrilled by his declaration that he believed with the fervour of religious conviction that that wise and righteous policy was still the policy of the great English nation. Such robust and undying faith has inspired the labours of our greatest patriots and is an indispensable quality in those who lead a constitutional struggle. Unfortunately, however, in a great majority of cases it does not survive the first inevitable failures, and it is difficult to say which are the stronger feelings in the country at the present moment-the hopes of a liberal ineasure of self-rule that have been roused, or the fears that our political status will not improve after the war through the voluntary action of the Imperial Government. If this expression of belief in the righteousness of Britain's policy towards India appeared somewhat romantic to the more eager spirits, his plea for patience and slow and cautious growth came as a bitter disappointment. parable of the man whose broken bones have been put in a steel frame was a particularly unsavoury pill to them. If we must talk in parables, they ask, is it not possible to conceive of a case in which the surgeon, for purposes of his own, unduly prolongs the period of enforced rest for his patient? The In what ways exactly Indians are to-day not fit to govern themselves, how the peoples of the various colonies demonstrated their fitness when responsible government was granted them, and what proofs we shall have to adduce in our own time, Sir Satyendra did not say. He took our unfitness for granted. This opinion of his was concurred in, he said, by prominent leaders of the Congress. It is noteworthy that he did not quote, as others did, the language of the first article of the Congress Constitution: "These objects are to be achieved by constitutional means by bringing about a steady reform of the existing system of administration." The argument apparently is that Congressmen are precluded, so long as they do not repeal the word steady by a unanimous vote of all the provinces, from demanding a large measure of constitutional reform, though it might commend itself to them as desirable. It is possible that the greatest lawyer of Calcutta dismissed the argument as legal pedantry. We now come to the famous passage in which : Sir Satyendra enumerated three possible ways of attaining self-government, dismissed two of these as out of the question for India, and recommended the third as the only safe and practicable way. Now the argument by elimination of possible alternatives, by reason of its conclusiveness in the exact sciences, is often extended, by those that seek effect, to regions of speculation where all the data are generally not known and even those that are known are incapable of precise definition. But the result of such extended application is not always happy. In this particular case one is constrained to say, with all due respect to Sir Satyendra, that he falls into a grievous error. The reasoning requires that the three ways open to us should lead to the same destination in other words "the priceless treasure of self-government" must in the three alternative cases be one and the same, and the context clearly proves that autonomy within the empire is the intended goal. Now the first way is that of a free gift from the British nation. In rejecting this alternative, Sir Satyendra speaks of it as a vision that "could only be realised if India free from the English could have stood in a tranquil state or in a sphere of absolute isolation." This is independence outside the British empire: who asked for this boon from the British nation? Did ever any political party in India potition the Imperial Parliament for a decree that the British people should immediately withdraw from India and leave her to herself? What has been put forward as India's aspiration is autonomy within the empire. This surely it is possible for Great Britain to grant as a free gift. She has done so to several colonies, though none of them can stand even to-day, if cut off from the empire, in a tranquil state or in a sphere of absolute isolation. The second way is that of a conflict with the British power-open war or intimidation by assassination. Open war, if successful, will result in absolute independence. As to those miscreants who throw bombs, it is difficult to say what their political aim may be, if they have a clear political aim-whether to drive the English out of India or only to wrest political concessions from them. The third way, that of increasing fitness on the one side and ready concession on the other, is the only one that is admissible in view of the object to be attained. Here we stand on firm ground. Great changes have taken place, as has been stated in dealing with the first way, in the status of British colonies as the result of peaceful political agitation. Our hopes are grounded on such precedents. Sir Satyendra cites French Canada and the Boer Republics as examples of British generosity even in dealing with rebels and enemies. Such examples are dangerous. The perverse student may infer that Britain is generous only when she cannot help it. Let us examine this third way a little more closely. It is to be a prolonged process of growth, during which the people of India are to ask in proportion to their fitness and the British Imperial authorities are to give, when and to the extent that it will be impossible for them to withhold. This is what is known as political agitation or constitutional struggle. The process may conceivably be peaceful throughout. Given unfailing forbearance and good faith on both sides, it is quite a possibility. The one constant business of patriots should be to bring about and maintain this condition of peaceful and happy progress. Sometimes a concession may be too easily granted-the first way. Often, however, the tension between the sides will become severe. A sense of delayed rights will lead to impatience and strong speaking and writing. The reply on the other side will be repression. And this disturbed state of the polity may go on from bad to worse till finally a settlement is reached by the grant of concessions. In such a case one set of chroniclers will describe the event as a boon granted freely and without reference to fitness, while another will boast of having wrested a just right by sacrifice and suffering. In other words, what is called the third way will be found generally to be a combination, more or less difficult to analyse, of the first and second ways. Both Ranade and Gokhale used to say that privileges too easily conferred are not valued or used properly, and that only those are real blessings which are won by adequate sacrifices and sufferings. This is true doctrine without doubt. But every step of popular progress makes the next step easier, and unless history is a profitless study and experience makes no addition to human wisdom, there is reason to hope that political advancement will involve a continually diminishing amount of sacrifice and suffering. Of living empires, the British empire is the one within which it has been proved possible for a government to rise through regular stages from autocracy to the ideal of government of the people, for the people and by the people. As it is the good fortune of India to have come within the British empire, so let it be the glory of that empire to raise India to the fullest height of her constitution by entirely peaceful methods. The idea of fitness for self-rule requires some clearing up. Those who affirm India's fitness are asked: Are we ready to-morrow to start a parlimentary form of government in the provinces and in the seat of federal authority? Can we have the whole machinery in full working order at a moment's notice-party cabinets, resignations of the ministry, appeals to the country and all that? Nobody makes such an absurd claim. When we say that a certain person is fit for the office of Deputy Collector, we do not mean that the moment he is installed he will make an efficient Deputy Collector, but that, if he be given a fair trial in the office, he will in time discharge its duties efficiently and satisfactorily. So in the case of the Indian people. Our contention is that among them there is sufficient material on which to build a structure of self-government. Their intellectual and moral equipment fully justifies their being trusted with responsible government. But existing political institutions cannot be overhauled altogether. Adjustments have to be made with the utmost care. This is a work of several years, perhaps of one whole generation. The probation, therefore will last longer than till to morrow. Let us remember also that political education does not proceed at a uniform pace. During certain periods it takes enormous strides. The last ten years have witnessed in India more progress than has taken place in any fifty years since the English came to India. The next ten years are sure to be marked by vastly greater progress. Nevertheless, the exercise of autonomy will in the first decades lead to serious mistakes and result in heavy losses. Perhaps a few animosities, now held down by superincumbent pressure, will break out in violent forms. But these risks and others of the kind will have to be faced at any time the people of India get real power-whether now or at the end of two hundred years. Shall we face them as we may or leave the hard task to succeeding generations? One idea of great usefulness which the President of the Congress put forward was that at the end of the war the Imperial authorities should issue a declaration definitely accepting the political goal of the National Congress and the Muslim League. The present writer may be pardoned for quoting a sentence from an article that he contributed to the first issue of "Young India" published on November 17 of last year. "At the end of the war Indian politicians, unless they mean to betray the interests of their country, must press for an undertaking by the supreme authorities, not to be set aside or whittled down in practice like some of the pledges and proclama |