Part 9

"We are told that we must fearlessly criticise the proposals, if they fall short of our ideal. But if they do not, what then?"

Well then, we accept it (Laughter). What is there to say about it? Then it goes on to say:

"The circular assumes that Mr. Montagu's proposals are bound to be unsatisfactory and that they will mean little or nothing."

Where does the Circular assume that? The Circular merely asserts that if it is, it is our bounden duty to protest against that. Nothing more.

I need not read the rest of it. There is another passage which however I must read to you:

"Why then sound the tocsin of alarm and seek to create a prejudice for which so far as there is no warrant and against which there is a strong body of presumptive evidence. Why talk of fearless criticism and united front"?

This comes from Mr. Surendranath Banerjea! Surely we are fallen on evil times!

THE OLD "LEADER'S ADVICE TO THE PEOPLE."

Then our editor goes on to say:

"If they are satisfactory they should be welcomed; if they are partly satisfactory they should be welcomed to that extent."

(Never)

And why?

"For the British public would then feel inclined to drop them altogether."

To drop them altogether! Now, gentlemen, you have seen what that article is. The letter which was written by the Secretaries of the Provincial Congress Committee is merely put forward as an excuse. What is put forward before the people of Bengal is this; if it is satisfactory, of course, we should accept it. If not? In the article which appeared the next day, he made his position clearer. He said the difficulty is this: The Europeans are clamouring against it--the Indo-European Association in England is fighting against it--and if you, the people of Bengal say that you do not want it, why the British people will say 'then drop it altogether.' My answer to that is: let it be dropped if it is not satisfactory. Mr. Surendranath Banerjea admits it in this writing--let me quote his exact words:

"We quite admit that there have been many paper announcements in the past: and it is only too true that the pages of Anglo-Indian history are strewn broadcast with the fragments of broken pledges."

Let it be another fragment of broken pledge; but let not the people of Bengal consent to that! If their position is this: we will give you this and no further, let them give what they choose; but is it for us to say what little of self-government you choose to give us is amply sufficient for us at the present day? I venture to think that you will not accept such a proposition as that (No, no). We want self-government for a purpose. We do not want that self-government which some people brought up in European politics want--we do not want simply a weapon to fight against the bureaucracy--we have got tired of that and we say for God's sake, let us have peace in Bengal. (cheers) Let us have some sort of self-government which will enable us to look after the agricultural, industrial interests of the country, and to take up the work of education and sanitation which will enable us to work for the real good of the country without being obstructed at every step. That is why we want a change in the system of Government (cheers).

"BENGALEE'S" WRITINGS BEFORE MR. BANERJEA WENT TO DELHI.

Now, gentlemen, supposing Mr. Montagu says you can't get all that, take a little, just a little, a pinch. My position is this: I do not know what others will say. I hope the people of this country will have the courage to say: we want none of it, take it back: if we are to be slaves of the bureaucracy, if all our activities in every direction are to be controlled, and it may be, stifled at the sweet will and pleasure of the bureaucracy, we want none of it. Take it back to England (cheers). We do not want it here. We want courage to say that, I admit. But what right have you to ask for Home Rule if you cannot have the courage to say that--if you cannot have the courage to say to the Government that we don't want it: it will not serve our purpose. What is the good of giving something to the people which they do not want. Now, gentlemen, that I am right in taking this position I shall try to show to you, if you will bear with me--(go on) from one or two extracts from the "Bengalee" newspaper, before a change came over the spirit of its dreams. I will read to you just two or three extracts from the "Bengalee"--not after March when the editor went to Delhi but before that in November and December, 1917. I quote from the "Bengalee" of November 2nd 1917:--

"Mr. Montagu will not be deceived by these tactics (of the anti-Congress-League party). He will know how to appraise them at their proper value. The British Cabinet consisting of politicians of the type of Lord Curzon and Lord Milner have decided that India is to have responsible government and that a substantial advance is to be made in that direction as soon as possible. There is no going back upon this announcement. It must be accepted as a settled policy, from which there can be no departure. Mr. Montagu is coming out to discuss the details and how best this policy can be carried out. It is no use saying "we don't want responsible government; we are not fit for it."

This was Mr. Surendranath Banerjea on November 2nd 1917. He says:--

"Those who breathe a word against it in this crisis of our national evolution are traitors to their country and their God."

This was Mr. Surendranath Banerjea on November 2nd, 1917. On 3rd November, 1917, the mood still continues:

"We want responsible government in full measure in connection with the Provincial Branches of administration, leaving untouched the Departments under the control of the Government of India in regard to which the Congress scheme should apply."

Therefore what he wanted is responsible government in full measure in connection with the provincial branches. On the 11th November, the "Bengalee" writes:

"In Bengal the feeling is--and we think that Bengal reflects the feeling of all India in this matter--that a full measure of provincial autonomy should be at once given with the reform of the Imperial Legislative Council of the India office as recommended by the Congress and the Muslim League. Nothing short of this will satisfy educated India."

This was Mr. Surendranath Banerjea on November 11th. If he is a leader of yesterday, let him remain true to that leadership (Hear, hear). As for myself, standing on this platform to-day, I make a solemn promise to follow this leader if he remains true to what he was yesterday (cheers). I shall follow what Mr. Surendranath Banerjea said on November 11th, 1917 _viz._, that nothing short of this will satisfy educated India (loud cheers). Then on the 21st, November, he repeats the same ideal:

"Courage is the first and last quality of real statesmanship. It was the crowning quality of Akbar, the greatest ruler that ever adorned a throne. Let our rulers take courage in both hands and great will be their reward."

Courage is the first and last quality of real statesmanship! How have the mighty fallen!

NO SHAMS, NO DELUSIONS SAID MR. BANERJEA OF 1917.

He follows that up by saying on November 22nd:

"There must be no shams or shows or delusions. We have had too much of this commodity in the past."

No shams, no delusions. I follow the noble words of Mr. Surendranath Banerjea. I love them so much that I am prepared to follow his teachings. But if the Surendranath Banerjea of to-day does not follow the S. N. Banerjea of yesterday is it my fault that I cannot follow him? (laughter) I adore the Surendranath Banerjea of yesterday, but if he cannot remain true to his trust I cannot be false to my faith. Hear the leader of yesterday again:

"The Minto-Morley scheme, if it was not a dead failure, did not satisfy popular aspirations and was behind the growing requirements of the times. We hope the mistakes will not be repeated in the coming constitutional changes. Provincial autonomy must be the basis of the reforms, not an emasculated, half-hearted, system of Provincial self-government."

Noble words again and I repeat them and I follow them.

"but in full measure with a full share of responsibility. The time for half-measures is past and gone."

Then in the same article he goes on to say:

"The counsels of caution are often the counsels of timidity."

Mark these words, gentlemen. Then he says:

"If the Government will not make over the whole of the provincial administration to a popular Ministry responsible to a popular Assembly, let them at least, entrust to them such departments, as Education, Sanitation, Local Self-government, Police, etc."

Mark these words again. He includes the Police but I was told the other day that we ought not to take the Police; it is a difficult department to administer, (laughter).

Then on the 27th of November, the "Bengalee" writes:

"The country is rushing at a giddy pace and Lord Morley's reforms have failed to meet the exigencies of the times which cannot be satisfied by anything short of a full measure of responsible government."

Further:

"Any scheme that does not fully provide for this and secure full autonomous power for the provinces and falls short of the irreducible minimum put forth in the Congress-League scheme stands self-condemned and will totally fail to meet the wishes and requirements of the people and win their support."

But now he is urging the people of this country to support a scheme which may fall short of his ideal and he says even if it is not satisfactory we should accept it. Even on the 29th of November he says:

"Any tinkering reform of a patch-work kind will not avail to meet the necessities of the situation but will rather intensify the present difficulties."

Gentlemen, I will not weary you with any more extracts but I will quote just two passages, for which I hope you will pardon me (go on, go on).

SURENDRANATH OF DECEMBER, 1917.

On December 1st, Mr. Surendranath Banerjea says:

"Nothing less will satisfy the people of India or redeem the honour of England.... Real power must be given to us. No shams or delusions will satisfy us. We have had enough of them.... None of that taking away with the one hand what is given with the other."

Then on the 2nd of December, he says:

"Let it be clearly understood that the Congress-League scheme represents the irreducible minimum which admits of no curtailment here or excision there and then which no more moderate demand can be conceived under the circumstances."

It seems to me, gentlemen, that a scheme more moderate than the Congress League scheme can be conceived and Mr. Surendranath Banerjea of to-day has conceived that (laughter). Then on December 12th, he says:

"Too long have we been given the shadows of things--empty forms--which may please the infantile mind, but which the adolescent nation spurns away as a child's plaything.... Not only should justice be done, but that the people should be convinced of it, ... not only should the Government be satisfied, but that the people should be convinced that a substantial measure of responsible government has been granted."

THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION.

Gentlemen, you will find similar expressions of his opinion in January and one or two in February. In March, Mr. Surendranath Banerjea went to Delhi and from that moment--well I am reminded of the "Rake's progress"--I shudder to think of the last step--I think, we the people of Bengal--we are entitled to ask for an explanation of this phenomenon. We are entitled to ask Sir Surendranath--I beg your pardon, gentlemen, I beg his pardon too--coming events cast their shadow before and I was caught in that shadow just for a moment--I think, gentlemen, we are entitled to ask Mr. Surendranath why is it that yesterday he was determined not to have any measure of self-government which was not satisfactory, which was not responsible, which was not wide in its scope and why is it that to-day in the month of June, 1918, he is of opinion that whatever scheme the Secretary of State puts forward should be accepted by the people--if it is satisfactory it should be accepted, if it is not satisfactory, even then it should be accepted because if we did not accept it, the British people might not grant anything at all. We want an explanation of this. He is the leader of Bengal--he claims that. I am free to acknowledge that claim, but we the people of Bengal who have loved him, followed him and honoured him, we who had "learnt his great language" and "caught his clear accents," we who had followed him with all the devotion of our hearts, we who had lived "in his mild and magnificent eye" for the last 30 years, are we not entitled to ask him to explain to us the inner significance the deeper meaning of this change? (Hear hear,) It cannot be for "a handful silver," we are told, it is not for "a riband to stick in his coat." What is it then?

WAS IT TOUCH OF HAND OR TURN OF HEAD?

Was there anything in the atmosphere of Delhi which brought about this change--was it something said, something done?--was it touch of hand or turn of head? What was it? Was it the growing wisdom of old age? Surely some explanation is due from him to the people of Bengal and as for his reasons, I have told you and I repeat: as long as I shall live I shall repeat that whether the people of England are willing or not willing to grant us any reform, that will not induce me to accept it unless it recognises my natural right--a real scheme of reform means the recognition of the natural rights of the people of this country (Loud cheers) I claim no favour. I stand on my right.

WE STAND ON OUR RIGHTS

What rights can the British people give me if I have not the claim within myself? Can man create rights? They can only recognise the rights which I have within me, the rights which belong to me, the rights which are given to me by God and rights which no man can take away. Unless you can satisfy that, unless you can make good that position, neither the British Parliament, nor all the Parliaments of the world will be able to confer on you things which do not belong to you. Strive for the thing which belongs to you. Say to them manfully, "this is my right" and prove that assertion by the voice of the people, the united voice of the nation (cheers). Prove that assertion and when you have done that, is there any power in this world which can say, you will not have that which belongs to you (cheers). They can only keep it from you as long as you do not realise that it is yours. That which you realise as your own cannot be taken away from you. The moment you realise this is your own, that moment that right will have to be recognised and not a moment sooner. No half-measures will create that, no tinkering scheme of reforms has ever made a nation in the past and will never make a nation in the future. Is it not Mr. Surendranath Banerjea who has repeated times without number that nations are by themselves made (Loud Cheers)?

THE WISDOM OF THE LEADER OF YESTERDAY

We have to make ourselves. Is this the way? This way which Mr. Surendranath Banerjea is now recommending, is this the way to make a nation? It is a critical period in our political history: there was no crisis in the history of India from the earliest times down to the present which was more critical than this and at this critical time for a leader of our people to say 'give us what little you think wise, we, the people of this country will accept it.'--Is it politics? Is it wisdom? Or is it madness? Surely an explanation is due to the people.

Well, gentlemen, take this to your heart to-day and make a solemn vow that if you are fit for self-government, you have got to demonstrate that. No words ever produced or created rights. Enactments are nothing. They simply recognise rights which exist. The rights belong to you if you only realise the position--they are not yours, if you hesitate (cheers). If you hesitate, you are lost. If you are afraid to realise that you have rights you are not fit for self-government. The rights of nationality were never granted to a nation of cowards (hear, hear).

I thank you again, gentlemen, for listening to me patiently. I had many things more to say and if I find another opportunity I shall again address you (cheers).

THE GREAT DENIAL

_At Chittagong on the 17th June 1918, under the auspices of the local Home Rule League, a meeting was held under the presidency of Babu Jatra Mohan Sen, when Mr. C. R. Das delivered the following speech_:--

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I wish you had not insisted on my speaking to-night as I am anxious not to spoil the effect of the brilliant address (of the Hon. Mr. Fazlul Huq) to which you have just listened (go on, go on). If I rise to respond to the call from the Chairman, I confess it is not without some hesitation. Gentlemen, Mr. Huq has dealt with the question of Home Rule from many points of view, with considerable force and with great eloquence. I desire to say that I am in complete agreement with everything that has fallen from him. (Cheers).

You will, however, permit me to-night to tell you a story--the story of the great denial. The other day our distinguished Chairman said that we are in the midst of a great crisis. I also said that the present crisis of India is greater and more serious than any in her history. But to-day I will tell you the story of the great denial. As a preface to my story I shall ask you to recall to your mind the principal incidents of our national history under British Rule. More than a century and a half have passed by and at the end of it we find that the people of Bengal, the vast majority of them at any rate, are not educated and this want of education is put forward by the authorities as an argument against Home Rule. I have given this answer before and I repeat it again--if they are not educated, whose fault is it? What have the authorities been doing here for the last 150 years if they have not succeeded in educating the people of this country? What excuse is there for this failure? Is there a national government anywhere in the history of civilization, which after it took up the work of education, did not finish and complete it within, say, 30 years? (Hear, hear). Do you doubt for a moment that if we get self-government now, we will be able to educate the people of this country in another 20 years? But why has not this been done by the Government? Let the Bureaucracy answer--This is a chapter in the story of the great denial (Hear, hear).

OUR AGRICULTURE

Now, gentlemen, take the question of agriculture in this country. The Indian village-life was the envy of the world at one time. What are our villages now? How does our agriculture stand to-day? Has the Government done anything on that behalf during the last 150 years, which is at all worthy of a great nation and a great Government? (Cries of 'no,' 'no'). Yes, the answer must be 'no'. Why not? Because agriculture does not directly concern the bureaucracy of this country. It may be necessary to start a department and call it department of agriculture in the interest of the bureaucracy. That has been done--one or two colleges which are not suited to our requirements have been established. But has agriculture improved? I do not know whether in the interest of the Bureaucracy it is necessary that it should. But it is necessary for us. It is a matter of vital importance to the nation that the cultivators of Bengal should prosper and live better lives (hear, hear). It is a matter of supreme importance to those who want self-government or swaraj in this country (hear, hear). We must look forward to the whole Bengalee nation. We must work persistently, we must look forward to the day when the Bengalees as a nation, Hindus and Mahomedans, all together, will stand before the world in all the glory of nationality (cheers). I say therefore the question is of vital importance from the point of view of the nation. Who are the people of Bengal? Not we, who conduct cases in court, not those who sit as magistrates and judges. But who are they? It is those who cultivate the land--they are the real nation (cheers) and if ever this country rises--by God's grace, rise it must--and takes its place amongst the nations of the world (Loud cheers)--well, long before that, the agriculture of this country must be improved. That is one of the reasons why we want Home rule. This is another chapter in the story of the great denial (hear, hear).

OUR COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

Now, gentlemen, what is the story of our commerce and industry? I do not desire to begin from the beginning. I will not recall to mind or help you to recall to your mind the history of the destruction of our trade and the annihilation of our industries. Let the dead past bury its dead. But what about the living? What has the Government done to encourage Commerce and Industry in recent years? It is the crying need of the hour--the peculiar circumstances of this country demand a solution of this problem. Has the bureaucracy done anything in this matter? It is the duty of every civilized government to lend a helping hand and thus encourage the growth of Commerce and Industry. Can the Bureaucracy lay its hand on its breast and say that it has fulfilled its trust? The answer must be 'no'. That is another reason why we want Home Rule, and gentlemen, that is another chapter in the story of the great denial (hear, hear).

Do you want proof? For agriculture, the Government spends only 24 lacs of rupees out of Bengal's share of land-revenue which is 1-1/2 crores. What do the Government do with that money? The Bureaucracy says we who want Home Rule are not fit to represent the people! What has the Government done for them? They spend only 24 lacs of rupees or rather misspend it. Have any improvements been effected? That is the test. It is possible to have highly paid European agricultural officers without agricultural improvements.

That is exactly what has happened!

FIVE MILLION SOULS LOST IN FIVE YEARS

Now, gentlemen, what about sanitation? Shall I tell you the story of how the people are dying in this country for want of sanitation for the last few years? Listen to these figures.

In 1911-12--9 lacs of people died of malaria alone In 1912-13--9·59 " " " In 1913-14--9·65 " " " In 1914-15--10·61 " " " In 1915-16--10·64 " " "

So in five years we have had five million victims (Cries of Oh!) for want of sanitation in this country. Five million men in five years! More than the combined army of Great Britain and Ireland to-day! (Cries of Oh!) We have had representations and opinions of experts and a few experiments but what has really been done up to now? Are we to believe that this fell disease could not have been eradicated if the Government had taken active steps in that direction? Do you believe, gentlemen that if the government is nationalised--effectively nationalised--we cannot get rid of this disease? It is a matter of supreme importance to us, to the growing nationality of Bengal. It means that every year there is an increase in the number of deaths, it means want of strength, it means decrease of national vitality, it means that at not a very distant day we will be reduced to such a condition that it will be impossible to regenerate us. (hear, hear). I have given you only the number of people who die every year. But do we not see all over the whole country malaria-stricken people living by chance as it were--carrying on by some means or other, their miserable load of existence? The whole of Bengal is full of these people and yet what has the Government done? ('Nothing') Yes, practically nothing.

EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

_Three Annas per Head per Year._