THE PERILS OF NATIONALISM

The Calcutta Session of the Indian National Congress

• Unity Achieved

The Congress has achieved unity at Calcutta. For quite some time now it has done nothing else but achieves unity. Since the days of the Surat session right up to Amristar, the Congress went on year after year, giving birth to varying degrees of unity between its moderates and extremist wings. Amristar saw the birth of the Gandhian school and that session brought about unity between the new born child and the Tilak party after a dispute over the Montford reforms “which were inadequate, unsatisfactory and disappointing”. Next year at Calcutta, the Gandhians got the upper hand but they had to bend to the prevailing sentiment and agree to unity with the Nehru party and water down Non co-operation by introducing the word’ gradually’. At Nagpur unity was achieved between Mahatma Gandhi and Deshbandhu Das after an exchange of lathi blows among the Bengali delegates. The Ahmedabad session was probably an exception to the rule; though the seeds of disruption were there already implanted they could not germinate in an atmosphere tense with the expectation of great events. At Gaya there was a very superficial defeat of the Swarajists who quickly rallied and completely asserted themselves in the very first meeting of the All India Congress Committee a month after the Gaya Congress and rendered the No-Changers completely innocuous.
Thereafter the No-Changers went on the inclined plane: at Delhi, Moulana Mohammed Ali committed them to unity with the councilwallahs and at Cocanada, Mr. Rajagoplachari dissolved them, denied that they ever existed and achieved unity between himself and the Swarajists. Next year, at Belgaum, the most remarkable unity was achieved, a compromise between the spinning wheel and the councils giving birth to the spinning franchise. The new born child hardly ever saw the light of the day. With the obliteration of the Non-co-operators, the Swarajists became masters of the situation and were faced with the disconcerting fact that they had none left to achieve unity with. Hence, in order to rejuvenate the Congress, they divided themselves into two rival camps, the consistent obstructionists and the discriminate oppositionists, or as they facetiously put it, responsive non-co-operators and responsive co-operators. These two sections occupied two sessions of the Congress achieving unity between themselves and sanctioning the acceptance of certain offices and disapproving the acceptance of certain other offices within the gift of the Government. The dividing line between these two parties was too thin and the unities achieved did not strike the imagination of the Congressmen.
The proceedings of the Madras Congress were very stale. The delegates sat regretting the disappearance of exciting days: when, all of a sudden, somebody was struck by a brain wave. Why not convene an All Parties Conference and achieve an all-round unity which will devastate the country from one end of it to another? A magnificent idea! It was immediately given shape. In the fullness of time it produced the Nehru Report as a just retribution for the sins of England against India. The moderate and the extremist, the Swarajist and the responsivist, the cooperator and the non co-operator, the Hindu and the Muslim, everyone could drink deep at the fountain of unity fashioned by the Nehru Committee. But it is possible that there can be too much of a good thing. The best drinks often satiate. So it was with the Nehru report. By bringing about actual agreement between the contending parties, it killed the scope for further incentive, for fresh achievements in the direction of unity-mongering. Even the mighty Nehru committee must achieve unity with someone or another. Otherwise their fate is sealed. The Independence League has obligingly come forward to save the situation. Dominion Status versus Independence! What a glorious prospect for unity! The occasion must be celebrated with special éclat and none else, but the saint in retirement would do to officiate as the high priest. Amidst the rejoicings of the lacks and lacks of people gathered in Deshbandhu Nagar the latest brand of unity is being brought into existence at Calcutta to meet the “exigencies of the political situation”. The Calcutta Congress is successful Vandemataram.

We wonder if Congressmen ever read Hegel. The German philosopher thought that truth had two sides, one opposed to the other. He conceived it to be his special mission in life to reconcile the two and bring about unity. The essence of reality was, to him, such a synthesis of opposites. Thus, Being and Non-Being were synthesized by him into Becoming which was the unity, hence the ultimate truth. He could not find scope for truth in anything one-sided. One day, contemplating about the rich traditions of India and of Asiatic people generally, he thought there might be some truth in them after all; and hence he immediately went in search of the opposite, the rival aspect of the truth. He found the rival in Africa. He was satisfied with the find and sat down to effect the synthesis, to bring about the unity. Asia and Africa, the opposites meet in Europe, do they not? Hence Europe is the synthesis, Europe is the ultimate truth, Asia and Africa merely its superficial aspects! Hegel was startled at this conclusion and hence satisfied. Unconsciously though it may be, the Congress veterans are treading in the footsteps of the redoubtable German Philosopher. Every session of the Congress is intended merely for the manufacture of a special brand of unity. The latest achievement is quite characteristic and thoroughly Hegelian. Dominion status is the thesis, Independence is the anti-thesis and Non-co-operation is the synthesis, which is the unity. Quite startling, is it not? Success is assured for the Calcutta brand.

Gandhiji talks about the inferiority complex. May we humbly suggest that he should first investigate the unity complex of the Congress which blocks all practical endeavour and leads high aspirations to mere verbal expressions and frothy achievements. Freedom can be won by men who have the courage to stand aside and risk the consequences, never by those who are afraid of loneliness and crave for company. The craze for unity is the outward manifestation of the fear in our heart. Unity resolutions are the ebullitions of the coward we harbour within our breast. Shall we discard our fear, destroy the unities and march forward to dare and to do? Or shall we walk the easy and the beaten track and continue to move in the vicious circle which turns out a special brand of unity at every Congress session?
Revolt, 2 January 1929

• Our Chameleons

The Calcutta Congress marks an epoch in the growth of political parties in our country. The Swarajists have made their exit and the Independence party has emerged as an organised group.

The Swarajists are gone, once forever. Does anyone doubt it? Let him but watch the courtesies that quondam Swarajists exchange in public. The Madras hartal during the Simon visit was a failure. “Because Satyamurti lay hidden weeping, under the cot in his zenana.” So says the leader of the Swarajya party of his deputy. “Because Swami Venkatachalam was struck with remorse at the prospect of losing his business.” So says the deputy of his chief. No patient survived such dangerous diagnosis. Least of all could the Swarajya party.

The Independents have emerged out of the Calcutta Congress. Not that there were no Independents before Calcutta. Moulana Hazrat Mohani was their great forerunner. He made his influence felt even at the Ahmedabad congress which was a one man’s show. The Moulana’s amendment pressing for Independence occasioned a spirited opposition by Gandhiji and was summarily rejected by the house. But the idea held on. At every successive session the voice of the advocates of Independence was vociferously heard. Pandit Gouri Sankar Misra and Bulusu Sambamurti kept the flag flying and defended it against odds until the Madras session. At Madras Pandit Jawaharlal, fresh from Soviet Russia, made his debut in the Congress. He plumped for Independence and carried the house by storm. But the storm ceased without effecting perennial damage. Independence was to be arranging an All Parties Convention and the drawing up of a Report. All the emphasis was on the latter, the actual. The independents did not succeed at Madras.

The year following was noted for the activities of the Nehru Committee and the production of its Report. The intensive propaganda on behalf of the Report tended to obliterate the distinction of parties in the country. It almost looked as though the unity stunt would succeed. That was precisely the object of the Congress resolution. But the prospect of a coalescence of parties was extremely distasteful to a section of our “leaders”. They made up their minds not to yield the palm to the Conventionists. They gathered in their strength at Calcutta and won the victory. It suited their purpose to sail for the time being under the flag of the Independence party. Who are they? Their history is worth telling.

There is a type of politicians who wants to be taken as the sole and the special repositories of all the available patriotism in the country. Extremism is their creed; they do not flinch from professing the highest of ideals. Nationalism is their trade mark which lesser mortals dare not infringe. It is protected by the sanction of their thundering press. They are a warlike race. They will not wait. They promise fulfillment before the minute is out. You shall not venture to ask them for their credentials. They do not believe that words need be followed by actions. Promises liberally broadcasted will end within themselves. Before you recover from the splendour of one promise and have time to discover that it will not, it cannot be fulfilled, you are overwhelmed by the brilliance of a new promise – a thing absolutely fresh and grand, a short cut to fame and glory. These super patriots are quick change artists.

Originally, they styled themselves the Nationalists. They made their entry into Indian politics as opponents of those Moderates who founded and built up the Congress. They were distinguished from the Moderates by their lack of restraint in talk and the poverty they exhibited of achievement of the Congress (sic).The Nationalists had the free run of the country for years, practically until the appearance of Mahatma Gandhi on the political arena.

In those early days there were anarchists in Bengal and elsewhere, in much larger numbers than there are now. Nowadays if anybody talks of violence, we know exactly what he means: he has either lost an election at the municipal ward or he intends to ask for a loan of two annas from you. The Gandhian talk of non-violence has killed the go in many a bomb-thrower. Not so in the hoary days of Nationalism. There were youths about who had an uncanny habit of matching their acts to suit their opinions. The Moderate openly expressed his horror. But the Nationalist, to serve his own private ends, preferred to speak in enigmas. He said, the anarchist was bound to exist, as long as National aspirations remained unsatisfied. The anarchist was bound to exist, even as he was bound to get hanged. The Nationalist would not refuse to serve as the hangman, only he would like to point out that there was a mysterious connection between himself and the anarchist, even if it be the connection between the executioner and the condemned. Mind you, the Nationalist was not responsible for the bomb, in fact he condemned it. But the pity of it was that the bomb was there because his own desires were not satisfied. And so on and on, he fenced until his coffers were filled by the people, and occasionally, by the bureaucracy. As the net result, the Nationalist gained a victory over the less nimble Moderate and the anarchist got exploited into the bargain.

That was before the days of Mahatma Gandhi. The Non-co-operator came in with such a strange faith and in such numbers that our super patriot was, for the nonce, worsted. The setback was temporary. The Nationalist quickly rallied. He made the discovery that he could still lay claim to a patriotism superior to that of the mere No-change Nonco-operator. He changed his colours and became a Swarajist. He proclaimed he thereby went one better than the Gandhian school. The No-changer boycotted the legislative councils and non-co-operated with the bureaucracy from without those councils. The mouth of our patriot watered at the prospect of his getting into the councils. He therefore gave out that he intended to walk into the councils only to practice non co-operation from inside the councils themselves. He would dare to beard the lion in his own den. Hurrah!For such bravery, the Swarajist deserved to win at the polls, and he did win.

Non-co-operation created a fashion for getting into jail. And thousands flocked into prison, “even as the bridegroom seeks the nuptial chamber.” On the crest of a surging emotion it is possible to make such a demonstration of sacrifices en masse. But our Swarajist friend never lost control of himself. He had a wholesome fear of jail life. He was at one with the Moderate in disapproving of self-denying ordinances leading to prison gates. But unlike the Moderate, the Swarajist had no objection to reap the benefit of the sacrifices of the Non-co-operators. “Have not thirty thousand heroes marched to the jail to save the honour of the country? Therefore, vote for me, I am their representative. Have you faith in the programme of Mahatma Gandhi? If you have, vote for me, I am heir to their belongings.” Such was the logic of the Swarajist appeal. But it caught on, and they managed to gather votes. Another defeat for the weak kneed Moderates. Another adroit exploitation, this time of the jail birds.

The Swarajist idol soon betrayed its cloven hoof. Once inside the councils the enervating atmosphere had its effect. Some accepted offices under the Government. Others became sour because they could not secure offices for themselves. Their election cry turned out to be a palpable hoax. The party stood thoroughly discredited. The Swarajists dared not face the electorate again under their original colours. There was a need for a change of colours. Our chameleons saw their opportunity at Calcutta. The Swarajist flag is cast off and Independence is proclaimed. The new slogan will catch at the coming elections. They have the blessing of the Congress. It will be plain sailing.

Young Bengal may be serious about Independence. Young men all over the world are terribly serious. But Young Bengal did not play its part at Calcutta. Young Bengal served a purpose, somebody else’s Nationalism and Anti-Caste Radicalism 25 purpose. On the eve of the Congress the Swarajists were threatened with extinction. The Congress has saved the Swarajists. It was done at the cost of Young Bengal. The Swarajists suffered but a change of name. They are intact as a party – the Independents. Well may Mrs. Besant shed tears. It was another defeat for the Moderates. And a fresh exploitation of a third party, this time of Young Bengal.

Men may come and man may go, but our chameleons go on for ever. From Nationalism to Swarajism, thence to Independence, they will change their hue to suit the “exigencies of the political situation.” But their identity will be unmistakable. They will keep loyal to their ideals amidst the maze of ever changing colours. They will oppose the practical workers, they will exploit the idealists. We may spare our tears for the Swarajists who are no more, for they have but taken a new incarnation. They walk in all their glory as the Independents. The Swarajists are dead, long live the Swarajists.

Revolt, 9 January 1929

• Ambulatory

The Congress gathered in great pomp on the banks of the Hugli, in the city where resides the great Kali who revels in blood, night and day, day in and day out. Under the fearful auspices of the devouring Mother were assembled in their full strength the rival political parties in the country determined to engage on a war to the knife, showing no quarter, taking none. Lakhs and lakhs of people crowded at Deshbandhu Nagar to witness the Battle Royal. The combatants were ranged in serried ranks. They advanced to the tune of martial music. The rivals met. Swords were flourished. Then a crash. Something unexpected, something astounding happened. They compromised. Peace was declared amidst general rejoicings. The crowds dissolved with a sense of relief and a feeling of satisfaction. The rivals will meet again at Lahore. We shall witness another attempt at a trial of strength. But what is to happen in the year intervening?

• A Pious Hope

At Calcutta was passed a pious resolution which expresses the fond hope that we shall once again get to work on the four fold constructive programme, and in the picturesque language of Deshbandhu Das, we shall gather “men, munitions and money”. But the piety is that of the incorrigible saint who hopes against hopes. The Congress expressed no interest in such tameness. We are not rash enough to venture on a prophecy. But we cannot help expressing our humble scepticism: the “one crore members, one crore wheels and one crore rupees” is a feat impossible of repetition. That event is past history, and history does not repeat itself. Mere repetition is possible only by the machine; a living organism like the Indian Nation which grows from day to day and from year to year cannot repeat its past. A craving for such repetition is a symptom of disease: it displays poverty of imagination; it displays inability to assimilate the growth. Eight years ago we succeeded in the endeavour. We enrolled a crore of names on the Congress register: then we tore up the register. We established a crore of wheels: then, we burnt them. We collected a crore of rupees; well, we spent them. How did we manage the tearing, the burning and the spending? And what was the result of our achievement? What was the lesson we learnt out of such experience? These are the elements which constitute the growth of the Nation since the days of eight years ago when the original Constructive Programme was launched. An empty call to repeat the feat without taking into account these constitutive elements betrays a want of understanding of human nature. The cry encore is never answered in real life, it is answered in the theatre where they ape life.

• The Resolution

But there was a central resolution of the Congress, the resolution round which were ranged the conquering hosts of Moderates and Extremists, Constitutionalists and Non-co-operators, those who have drawn the sword for Dominion Status and those who would strike for Immediate Independence. This resolution was separated from the resolutions of pious hope. The separation is significant in spite of Gandhiji’s attempt to explain it away. The central resolution is the result of a compromise between those who wait for a gesture from England and those who pretend they do not. The object of the compromise is to mark time until the gesture is made by England. The marking time must be done with bravado and without loss of prestige. Here is the text of the compromise resolution passed by the Calcutta Congress:-

“This Congress having considered the constitution recommended by the All-Parties Committee Report, welcomes it as a great contribution towards the solution of India’s political and communal problems and congratulates the Committee on the virtual unanimity of its Nationalism and Anti-Caste Radicalism 27 recommendations; and whilst adhering to the resolution relating to complete Independence passed at the Madras Congress, approves of the constitution drawn up by the Committee as a great step in political advance especially as it represents the largest measure of agreement attained among important parties in the country.

Subject to the exigencies of the political situation, this Congress will adopt the constitution in its entirety if it is accepted by the British parliament on or before December 31, 1929, but, in the event of its non-acceptance by that date or its earlier rejection, the Congress will organize non-violent non-co-operation by advising the country to refuse taxation and in such other manner as may by decided upon.

Consistently with the above, nothing in this resolution shall interfere with the carrying on in the name of the Congress of propaganda for complete Independence”.

• The Interpretation

And here is the interpretation of that resolution by one of its chief sponsors, Mr. Srinivasa Iyengar:-

“In the first paragraph the Congress reiterates its adherence to the goal of complete Independence and it contrasts it with the constitution recommended by the Nehru Committee. It means nothing less than complete severance of the British connection. There was no intention on the part of the Congress to go back on that. While the Delhi resolution was silent as to what was to happen in case the British Parliament accepted the Constitution, the Calcutta Congress resolution makes the situation clearer and stiffer. It sets the time-limit of one year only for the acceptance of the British Parliament. It wants the acceptance of the Constitution in its entirety. Further, the Congress does not adopt these recommendations now but waits till the British Government accepts them. It merely promises to adopt them, if the two conditions of time-limit and acceptance in entirety are fulfilled. But even the promise is ambulatory, for if the exigencies of the political situation require a reconsideration of that promise, the Congress will do so. The matter does not rest there; the Congress contemplates non-acceptance or rejection by competent authority earlier than the end of this year and in that case it will proceed without hesitation to launch a mass movement. Meanwhile, propaganda in the name of the Congress for complete Independence is to be carried on.”

• The Central Note

The resolution has many interpreters. But Mr. Srinivasa Iyengar is the authorized bhashyakar (interpreter – editors). He took a hand in the drafting of their resolution, and probably, he hatched the interpretation before the drafting. Moreover he strikes the central note which expresses the genius of the resolution. Ambulatory, that is it, Mr. Stickat-nothing behind the whole resolution. It is to build up and maintain his prestige that a costly show is arranged at the end of every year by a poor Nation. Is it not time that we wake up from the slumber invoked by this ambulating prodigy who drives the Nation in a vicious circle just to satisfy his perambulating proclivities and incidentally to escape from being cornered by any of his rivals in the political arsenal.

Revolt, 16th January 1929