|
went to Mr. Tilak on the night of 27th and the morning of 28th to ascertain the views of his party, and to each of them Mr. Tilak gave the following assurance in writing :-
Surat, 28th December. 1907
"Dear Sir, — With reference to our conversation, and principally in the best interests of the Congress, I and my party are prepared to waive our opposition to the election of Dr. Rash Behari Ghosh as President of 23rd Indian National Congress, and are prepared to act in the spirit of forget and forgive, provided, firstly, the last year's resolutions on Swaraj, Swadeshi, Boycott and National Education are adhered to and each expressly reaffirmed; and secondly, such passages, if any. in Dr. Ghosh's speech as may be offensive to the Nationalist Party are omitted." Your etc.. B.G. Tilak
This letter was taken by the gentlemen to whom it was addressed lo the Moderate leaders but no compromise was arrived at as the Moderates were all along bent upon the retrogression of the Congress at any cost. A Convention of the Moderates was. therefore, held in the pandal the next day where Nationalists were not allowed to go even when some of them were ready and offered to sign the declaration required. On the other hand, those who did not wish to go back from the position taken up at the Calcutta Congress and honestly desired to work further on the same lines met in a separate place the same evening to consider what steps might be taken to continue the work of the Congress in future. Thus ended the proceedings of the 23rd Indian National Congress; and we leave it to the public to judge of the conduct of the two parties in this affair from the statement of facts herein before given. B.G. Tilak, G.S. Khaparde. Arabindo Ghose. H. Mukerjee. B.C. Chatterjee. Surat, 31st December, 1907.
APPENDIX How they wanted to go back The Congress Ideal
Remarks: It will at once be seen that the new Constitution intended to convert the Congress from a national into a sectional movement. The goal of Swaraj on the lines of self-government Colonies, as settled last year, was to be given up; and in its stead Self-Government similar to that enjoyed by other members (not necessarily self-governing) of the British Empire, was to be set up as the ultimate goal, evidently meaning, that it was to be considered as out of the pale of practical politics. The same view is expressed by Sir Pherozeshah Mehta in his interview with the correspondent of the Times of India, published in the issue of the Times dated 30th December 1907. The Hon. Mr. Gokhale must have taken his cue from the same source. The reform of the existing system of administration, and not its gradual replacement by a popular system, was to be the immediate object of the Congress according to this constitution; and further no one, who did not accept this new creed, was to be a member of Provincial or District Committees, or possibly even a delegate to the Congress after 1908. This was the chief feature of retrogression, which Sir P.M. Mehta and his party wanted to carry out this year at a safe place like Surat. It is true that the old resolution on Self-Government was subsequently included in the draft Resolutions, published only after the commencement of the Congress Session. But the draft Constitution was never withdrawn.
Swadeshi Movement
Remarks: Last year the words "even at some sacrifice" were introduced at the end after great discussion and as a compromise between the two parties. The Hon. Mr. Gokhale or Sir P.M. Mehta now wanted to have these words expunged, converting the old resolution into a mere appeal for preference for the indigenous over imported goods.
Boycott Movement
Remarks: This subject was not included in the list of subjects published at first but seems to have been subsequently inserted in the draft Resolutions, when the first omission in the list was severely noticed in the press. The words Boycott Movement in the old resolution have, however, been changed into Boycott of foreign goods.
National Education
Remarks: The change is significant inasmuch as the words "on National lines and under National control" are omitted in the Surat draft, for "control" is the most important factor in this matter. The phrase "an independent system" does not convey all that is desired.
Bipin Chandra Pal
In our last issue insufficient notice was taken of the role played by Bipin Chandra Pal in the Bande Mataram trial. The only mention of this was in the diary of Hemendra Prasad Ghose (Document 2), below the date 30 August 1907 (p. 224): "Babu Bipin Ch. Pal has declined to give evidence in Bande Mataram case and trying magistrate has ordered his prosecution." The government had called Pal hoping they could make him implicate Sri Aurobindo as the paper's editor. But on 26 and 29 September Pal refused to take oath before the court. Charged with contempt, he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. Plate 1 shows Pal (seated left) and Sri Aurobindo (seated right) at a meeting held at Uttarpara on 10 March 1908, the day after Pal's release from prison. The figure in the centre is probably Raja Piyari Mohan, Zamin-dar of Uttarpara.
Sri Aurobindo, the Congress, and Swaraj
The Indian National Congress held its first session in 1885. Ostensibly formed as an association of "native" politicians and other "workers of our country's cause",1 it actually had for its purpose, as its founder W.O Hume privately wrote, "to serve as a safety-valve for the escape of great and growing forces" of unrest that were gathering in the country.2 Nevertheless, to Indians of the day the Congress was to us all that is to man most dear, most high and most sacred; a well of living water in deserts more than Saharan, a proud banner in the battle of Liberty, and a holy temple of concord where the races met and mingled.3 In 1885 Sri Aurobindo was a thirteen-year-old student of Classics in London. It is doubtful whether at that time he was filled with such enraptured enthusiasm about the Congress. But as he grew older he did follow its activities with intelligent interest. So much so that immediately after his return to India in 1893. he could sum up its whole history in one paragraph: I say, of the Congress, then, this, — that its aims are mistaken, that the spirit in which it proceeds towards their accomplishment is not a spirit of sincerity and whole-heartedness, and that the methods it has chosen are not the right methods, and the leaders in whom it trusts, not the right sort of men to be leaders; —in brief, that we are at present the blind led, if not by the blind, at any rate by the one-eyed.4 Such was the Indian National Congress before 1905. Its only activities were the hearing of long tedious speeches that never touched the heart of India's growing ills, and the framing of petitions, couched in terms of obsequious loyalty, for minor reforms that were never granted. As even A.C. Majumdar, once Congress president.
1 R.C. Majumdar, History of the Freedom Movement in India, Vol. 1 (Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay, 1971), p. 352. 2 Ibid., p. 347. 3 Sri Aurobindo. Bande Mataram (1972). p. 7. 4 Ibid., p. 15. admits in his sanguine defense of the early Congress, during these first twenty years of its history: the only concession of note obtained was a half-hearted measure of nominal reform of the Indian Councils under a Parliamentary Statute of 1892 which the Government of India took precious good care still further to restrict in its application as an experiment. . . . As regards the other complaints of the Congress and the people not even a courteous reply was vouchsafed to any of them.5 It was not until the birth of the new political spirit after the partition of Bengal in 1905 that the Congress showed signs of becoming effective. At its twenty-first session, held that year in Benares, the president declared that the aim of the Congress was to secure for India self-government. This was revolutionary, however much the qualifying phrase "within the Empire" limited this autonomy. One resolution passed at Benares recorded the Congress's "emphatic protest against the Partition of Bengal." Another noted its "earnest and emphatic protest against the repressive measures which have been adopted by the authorities of Bengal after the people there had been compelled to resort to the boycott of foreign goods." To approve of the boycott, the most aggressive means of agitation ever adopted against the British, to consider it "a constitutional and effective means", showed a considerable change in the Congress's orientation. This change was brought about by a new brand of politicians, among whom was Sri Aurobindo. Sri Aurobindo was present at the Congress in Benares, although he played no active part in its deliberations. Early the next year he resigned his official position at Baroda. For the first time he was able to devote himself entirely to political work. As mentioned in a previous Archival Notes (Archives and Research, April 1979). in August of the same year Sri Aurobindo became involved with the national education movement. He also began to write for, and soon to edit, the influential daily newspaper Bande Mataram. The forward group of the Congress had been growing steadily in strength. Called "Nationalists" by themselves, they were characterised as "Extremists" by their opponents, because these "Moderates" (as the Nationalists called them) feared the new party's views might cause the dominant foreigners to suppress the movement. Most dangerous of these "extreme" views was that India was entitled to her freedom and had no need of remaining forever under British tutelage. The Moderates, lead by such men as Pherozeshah Mehta, G.K.Gokhale and Surendranath Bannerjee, were still in control of the Congress, but their hold was weakening. It was with difficulty that they prevented Bal Gangadhar Tilak. the great Nationalist leader from Poona, from being elected President of the 1906 session, which was to be held in Calcutta. At the last moment the name of Dadabhai Naoroji was put forward, not "constitutionally in the Reception Committee", but in a "Secret Cabal" of Moderates.6 No one could oppose the "Grand Old Man" of Indian politics (as many Indians, imitative of Britain even in the matter of appellations, called Dadabhai). When it was announced, before the fact, that Dadabhai had accepted the nomination, Tilak's name was withdrawn. The Extremists had been outmanoeuvred.
5 A.C. Mazumdar. Indian National Evolution (Madras: G.A. Natesan & Co., 1917). pp. 99-100. 6 Sri Aurobindo. Supplement (1973), p. 166. But in the session itself they could not be held back. Four important resolutions were passed by the Calcutta Congress which together represented a great victory for the Nationalists. These four will be dealt with in reverse order of importance. Firstly, the Congress called for education "on national lines and subject to national control". This was a project dear to Sri Aurobindo as principal of the Bengal National College. Then, in two separate resolutions, the Congress gave its support to the Swadeshi and Boycott movements. The word svadesi means "indigenous". The Swadeshi movement promoted Indian industries, crafts, etc. Along with this went the boycott of foreign products. But boycott could be used as a political weapon as well as a form of economic protection. For this reason these two resolutions became points of contention between the timid Moderates and the Extremists. The scene of the clash was the Subjects Committee, where the resolutions to be brought before the open session were determined. The prominent Moderate. Madan Mohan Malaviya, was deputed to bring about a compromise. Crucial discussions took place behind the scenes. In Malaviya's words: "He [Lokmanya Tilak], Lala Lajpat Rai, Mr. Bipin Chandra Pal and Mr. Arovindo Ghose and I met and talked the matter over."7 We see that the young Sri Aurobindo has taken his place beside "Lal-Bal-Pal" as a recognised force in the party. (He is not included in the famous picture taken in Calcutta at the time of the Congress (Plate 2), but his influence was apparently already as strong as that of the older Nationalists.) After some negotiation about the wording of the Swadeshi resolution, Malaviya and the four Extremists were able to agree to a form which was accepted unanimously by the Subjects Committee and by the Congress. It was the addition of the words even at a sacrifice at the end of the resolution calling upon people to use Swadeshi goods.8 This formula, suggested by Lajpat Rai, satisfied the Extremists by implying more than a simple preference of Indian goods. It also left the door open to a political use of boycott. And the boycott resolution itself, as finally phrased, was put in such terms that not only Bengal, which after the Partition had originated the movement, but "any other province which feels itself called upon to resort to this weapon in order to vindicate its rights, need not hesitate to take it up."9 So Sri Aurobindo announced in Bande Mataram after the Congress. Pherozeshah Mehta had gone to Calcutta "determined to undo the boycott resolution" adopted in Benares the year before. Instead, he had to submit to its strengthening amid "stormy scenes" which showed that the old order was coming to an end. According to Mehta's biographer: "Pherozeshah and others were grossly insulted" during the passage of the resolution in the Subjects Committee "and even the revered Dadabhai did not escape the shafts of extremist invective." 10 But the most important resolution was that relating to the aim of the Congress. It was eventually decided to demand self-government "on colonial lines". This was a significant step forward from the self-government "within the Empire" of the
7 Bapat. S.V. (Ed.), Reminiscences & Anecdotes of Tilak (1928). p. 171. 8 Ibid. 9 Sri Aurobindo. Bande Mataram (1972), p. 203. 10 H.P. Mody. quoted in S.L. Karandikar. Lokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak (Poona: S.L. Karandikar). p. 234. Benares resolution. Dadabhai Naoroji, in his presidential address, had used the word Swaraj for this colonial self-government. According to Sri Aurobindo this was an attempt to capture and degrade this dangerous term. Swaraj means simply "independence". The word had for some time been used in this sense by certain Bengali writers. At Calcutta it was considered prudent not to use "Swaraj" in the self-government resolution itself. But the Extremists insisted on referring to it as the Swaraj resolution. The implication was that complete independence was the goal of India's political efforts. The next step was taken by Sri Aurobindo in the months that followed. Instead of "Swaraj", in editorial after editorial he used the unambiguous English terms "independence" and "freedom". He was the first Indian politician to have the courage to do this. Bipin Chandra Pal, during his editorship of Bande Mataram, had written about "absolute autonomy" as the Nationalist ideal. But Pal never made a full and systematic statement on the subject. To do this was Sri Aurobindo's distinctive contribution to the freedom movement. After the Calcutta Congress Sri Aurobindo fell ill and went to Deoghar in the hills of Bihar to recuperate. While there he conceived several series of articles for Bande Mataram. These began to appear in the journal in April 1907, and did much to determine the policy of the Nationalists in that crucial year. The articles were far ahead of their time, but eventually they determined the direction taken by the Indian National Movement. Their keynote was freedom. Under the heading "Shall India be Free", Sri Aurobindo proclaimed: Liberty is the first requisite for the sound health and vigorous life of a nation. A foreign despotism is in itself an unnatural condition and if permitted, must bring about other unhealthy and unnatural conditions in the subject people which will lead to fatal decay and disorganisation. Foreign rule cannot build up a nation — only the resistance to foreign rule can weld the discordant elements of a people into an indivisible unity.11 Readers of Sri Aurobindo's Ideal of Human Unity, begun ten years later, will recognise the last point as part of its argument. Other aspects of "nation-building", and the distinction between unity and uniformity, ideas which get their full development in the later work, appear in subsequent instalments of "Shall India be Free?".12 Sri Aurobindo's demand for independence was not merely a passionate patriotic cry. It gained its strength by being grounded in a deep study of ancient and modern history. As for colonial self-government, Sri Aurobindo called it a "palace in fairyland". It was the rallying point for men intellectually so much dominated by the gospel of Loyalism that they cannot embrace Nationalism with their whole heart and try to arrive at a compromise between subjection and independence. . . . The Moderate delusion is really a by-product of the Loyalist delusion.13 As satisfied as he was by the Calcutta resolution as a temporary tactical victory, Sri Aurobindo was anxious to extend it to what he considered its natural conclusion. Meanwhile the Moderates were licking their wounds, and planning their next moves. They were not long in reestablishing the status quo on their home ground.
11 Sri Aurobindo, Bande Mataram (1972). p. 300. 12 Ibid., pp 309, 315. 13 Ibid., p. 301. In the Bombay Provincial Congress held in Surat in March 1907, the dictatorial Mehta managed to have the National Education resolution excluded.14 At Calcutta it had been suggested that the 1907 national session should be held at Lahore. But the Punjab, home of Lajpat Rai, was too extreme for the Moderates. They opted for Nagpur, a city which had a strong enough Moderate element to override, they thought, its growing Nationalist tendencies. But the Nationalists of Nagpur. under the leadership of Dr. Munje, a lieutenant of Tilak, showed themselves to be the coming force. The Moderate leaders became worried. Through a series of machinations they managed to have the venue of the 1907 session changed from Nagpur to the very city that had recently proved so favourable to Moderatism — Surat.
The Surat Congress
The Congress session held in Surat in December 1907 was the most dramatic that ever met. To give a full account of its events would require a small volume. But two stand out as decisive: the breaking up of the session on 27 December, and the refusal of the Nationalists to join the Moderate Convention which was formed afterwards. The person responsible for both of these happenings was Sri Aurobindo. Well before the session began there were indications that a break between the Nationalists and Moderates was imminent. The most evident sign was the imbroglio at Nagpur between members of the two parties and the subsequent unconstitutional changing of venue spoken of above. After the change, wrote Sri Aurobindo, two choices were open to the Nationalists. It would be the logical course for us ... to abstain and allow the Loyalists to hold a purely Moderate Congress of their own. The other alternative is to arrange forthwith the organisation of Nationalist propaganda in Gujerat [the region, now a state, in which Surat is located] and make full use of the opportunity such as it is which the session will provide. In either case, a conference of our party is necessary.15 Later the first of the two alternatives was modified. It was not simply a boycott but a separate Nationalist Congress, to be held at Nagpur, that Sri Aurobindo thought would be preferable. But as much as he was in favour of the Nationalists parting company with the Moderates, he was willing, in this matter at least, to acquiesce in what others proposed. An "informal meeting" of the Bengal Nationalists was held in Calcutta on 11 December "to consider action about [the] coming Congress." At this meeting, as Hemendra Prasad Ghose records in his diary, it was "decided to attend in large numbers". Sri Aurobindo explained why in the next day's issue of Bande Mataram: "When Mr. Tilak and Lala Lajpat Rai, fresh from his exile, were in favour of attending the Surat session, there could be no further question of our course." 16 Since Tilak was later blamed for the Congress split, it is important to note how definitely he was against it. On 12 December 1907 he wrote to Motilal Ghose, editor of the Amrita Bazar Patrika: "We must not allow the Congress to die and I
14 Ibid., p. 247. 15 Ibid., pp. 593-94. 16 Ibid., p. 638. may assure [you] that I or the new party, so far as I could control it, will not allow the Congress to die." Enclosed in Tilak's letter was a memo about holding at Surat three Nationalist conferences, such as Sri Aurobindo had deemed necessary. These three conferences took place as planned. But they were not the first separate Nationalist meetings to be held in India. On 7 December the Bengal Extremists, lead by Sri Aurobindo, had walked out of a district conference held at Mid-napur. The next day, while the Moderates fumed, the Extremists had held their own conference under their young leader. At Surat, it was again Sri Aurobindo who was chosen to preside over the Nationalist conferences. (See Document 1 and Plate 3.) The question of the moment was whether the Nationalist party would be able to secure a majority at the Congress session. The Moderates were busy rounding up supporters and paying their delegation fees. They were by this means able "to bring in a crowd of so-called delegates up to the number of 1300". Meanwhile, "the Nationalists were able by the same method to muster something over 1100." 17 In his diary entry of the twenty-fifth Khaparde remarks that "there was a movement to increase the number of our delegates and many visitors paid their money and enrolled themselves." But in order to close the gap of 200 delegates, the Nationalists needed twenty thousand rupees for their fees. As a biographer of Tilak relates: The assurance given by Dr. Nanasaheb Deshmukh that he would, if necessary, get the sum in time, buoyed up with optimism and enthusiasm the young men around Tilak. At this stage, Tilak intervened. "We cannot compete with them in this respect" he asserted, and added. "Against your loan of twenty thousand, they would straightway raise double the amount, enroll members and adjust accounts as they please." Feeling confident that the young men had sufficiently cooled down, he firmly and prophetically remarked, "I want to command the majority, but, that must evolve genuinely and naturally. Spurious, temporary and trumped up majorities are slippery. Within the next few years, I will get the majority I want. I have patience enough to wait." 18 Thus when the session opened at Surat on the twenty-sixth the Nationalists were in the minority. It was for them a dangerous situation. As Sri Aurobindo relates, "it was known that the Moderate leaders had prepared a new constitution for the Congress which would make it practically impossible for the extreme party to command a majority at any annual session for many years to come." 19 The work done at Calcutta in 1906 would be destroyed and the Nationalists would not be able to reverse the situation in the forseeable future. This was unacceptable to the younger Extremists of the Deccan. who were neither so patient as their leader nor, apparently, "sufficiently cooled down" to follow his lead. They were determined to keep the Moderates from passing their new constitution, and "it was decided by them to break the Congress if they could not swamp it; this decision was unknown to Tilak and the older leaders. But it was known to Sri Aurobindo." 20 The foregoing statement was written by Sri Aurobindo knowing it might eventually enter public circulation. But in a private conversation not intended for publication he revealed that the
17 Sri Aurobindo. On Himself (1972), p. 47. 18 S.L. Karandikar. op. cit., p. 260. 19 Sri Aurobindo. On Himself(1972), p. 47. 20 Ibid. decision was not only known to but actually taken by him. "A Mahratta leader — a lieutenant —came to me and asked me whether they should break the Congress. 1 said, 'You must either swamp it or break it.'"21 Swamping, that is, the buying of a Nationalist majority, was, as we have seen, ruled out by Tilak. But Tilak was no longer in full control of the party. With Sri Aurobindo's approval, the Mahratta Extremists destroyed the Congress. The Extremists version of the breaking up of the Surat Congress is given in Document 4. This account was written by Tilak on 30 December (see Document 1), and signed by him, Sri Aurobindo and three others, on the thirty-first. This account was an answer to the Moderates version, issued on the twenty-eighth (Document 2). Also on the twenty-eighth the Moderates put out a statement which had to be subscribed to by all who wished to take part in the Moderate Congress or "Convention" (Document 3). The main point of this Convention statement was "that the attainment by India of Self-Government similar to that enjoyed by self-governing members of the British Empire ... is the goal of our political aspirations." This became the first article of the Congress constitution passed the next year. It was the nullification of the self-government resolution passed with so much difficulty at Calcutta. Still, Tilak was in favour of signing it. He thought, writes Sri Aurobindo. that the country was not yet ready to face successfully such a repression [of the Nationalists by the Government] and he proposed to circumvent both the Moderate plan and the Government plan by the Nationalists joining the Conference and signing the statement of adhesion to the new constitution demanded by the Moderates. Sri Aurobindo and some other leaders were opposed to this submission.22 Sri Aurobindo was able to bring Tilak around to his point of view. The Nationalists" final "refusal to join the new-fangled Moderate Convention" was the second of the "two decisive happenings at Surat".23 The split between the parlies remained in force for more than ten years. "The Congress ceased for a time to exist; but the Moderate Conference was not a success and was attended only by small and always dwindling numbers."24 Eventually Moderatism died a natural death. In 1929, more than twenty years after Sri Aurobindo defined Swaraj as full independence, Jawaharlal Nehru declared "that the word 'Swaraj' in Article 1 of the Congress Constitution shall mean Complete Independence." After another score of years, the ideal was realised.
21 Mother India. 1967. p. 156. 22 Sri Aurobindo. On Himself (1972). p. 48. 23 Ibid., p. 49. 24 Ibid., p. 48. |