Part 6

"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).