|
The Question of the Hour
THE
writer of "A Word of Warning" which we publish today has voiced an
opinion which we find to be held by several Nationalists who have the success of
the movement sincerely at heart. Our correspondent, however, lays himself open
to some misinterpretation when he speaks of "the suicidal folly of an
unarmed and disorganised nation trying to measure its strength with that of the
best-organised power in the land." The kind of resistance which seems to be
suggested here is something in the nature of rebellion and it goes without
saying that such resistance for "an unarmed and disorganised nation"
would be not merely foolish but physically impossible; an armed revolt without
arms is an absurdity. But to measure our strength, in a very different way, with
the bureaucracy, however well-organised the latter may be, is the whole purpose
and principle of the Nationalist movement. Our position has always been that the
potential strength of the people is far greater than the actual strength of the
close oligarchy which governs them without regard to their wishes or
interests and that this potential strength can only be educated,
organised and welded into compactness and coherence by a direct struggle against
the antiquated and semi-mediaeval system with which the country is still cursed
in this twentieth century, when all other nations "from China to Peru"
are busy modernising and humanising their governments and institutions. In the
actual course of the struggle questions will always arise as between rigid
applications of principle and concessions to policy and between the contending
claims of sheer courage and courage tempered by calculation. We must remember
that throughout the movement the immense advance we have made is due to the
enthusiasm for a great principle and the boldness, — in the opinion
of
many an almost foolhardy boldness,
—
with which we have met every fresh crisis.
When the whole of Bengal flung itself into a passionate struggle with the
bureaucracy, it was not from any
Page-389
consciousness
of strength, for neither the people nor the rulers had any idea of the latent
possibilities of political strength in the country. It was in a moment of
uncalculating anger that Bengal took up the policy a few daring spirits
suggested and was amazed to find that in doing so it had discovered itself and
begun a new era of Indian history. The real point at issue now is whether it
will or will not be wise to make a frontal in preference to a flank attack on
the coercion ukase. We have defied an ukase before, but it was then the ukase of
local officialdom and of doubtful legality. The present ukase is the deliberate
act of the Government of India and the Secretary of State, and its legality is
as undoubted as its political immorality. The question therefore is
whether we
shall persist in carrying on our movement rigidly within
the pale of the law, however oppressive the law may be, or follow the example of
the Irish and the English Nonconformists by passive resistance to the law itself
with a view to bringing about its repeal. The answer really hangs upon the
possible next move of the bureaucracy and our preparedness to meet it. If the
bureaucrats try to break our resistance as at Rawalpindi by wholesale arrest,
deportation and police and military violence, as well as the still more
questionable methods we have seen in operation in East Bengal, shall we still be
able to persist, and, if not, what will be our next course? This is the
question which has given pause for a moment to the active prosecution of the
Nationalist campaign, since it involves a serious issue of policy which must be
settled before concerted action can take place. For if the ukase is to be
passively resisted, the opposition must be offered in concert and ubiquitously.
A sporadic resistance will be ineffectual and give the advantage to our
adversaries.
We again repeat that in our opinion the boldest course is the best. If we
thought, as the Anglo-Indian papers affect to think, that the movement was the
result of our own efforts, a mere human creation, we might be of a different
opinion. But throughout we have been conscious that our own efforts and the
impulse given or the work done by leading men, whether Moderates or Extremists,
have been so small, petty and inefficient that they are absolutely insufficient
to explain the extraordinary results. The machinery has been absurdly
inadequate, the organisa-
Page-390
tion
nil, the means at our disposal pitiably small, the real workers few and mostly
obscure, and yet the Indian world has stood amazed and the Anglo-Indian aghast
at the vast and incommensurate results of an apparatus so inefficient. We
believe, therefore, that Divine Power is behind the movement, that the
Zeitgeist,
the Time-Spirit, is at work to bring about a mighty movement of which the
world at the present juncture has need, that that movement is the resurgence of
Asia and that the resurgence of India is not only a necessary part of the larger
movement but its central need, that India is the keystone of the arch, the chief
inheritress of the common Asiatic destiny. The Mongolian world, preserving the
old strong and reposeful civilisation of early Asia, flanks her on the right and
has already arisen. The Mahomedan world, preserving the aggressive and militant
civilisation of Islam, flanks her on the left and in Egypt, in Arabia, in
Persia, is struggling to arise. In India the two civilisations meet, she is the
link between them and must find the note of harmony which will reconcile them
and recreate a common Asiatic civilisation. Viewing the movement in this larger
light we believe that as its progress and development has been in the past, so
it will be in the future above ordinary human calculations, with only one thing
certain about it, that no external force can frustrate it and no internal
intrigue divert. Neither John Morley nor Denzil Ibbetson nor Nawab Salimullah,
neither false friend nor open enemy, nor even our own mistakes and weakness can
come in its way, but rather they are unconsciously helping it on and working for
it. In this belief we are willing to take any risk and meet any expense of our
blood and our labour for the great end. To husband our men or our resources and
try to buy liberty in the cheapest market, would be a false and foolish economy.
Lajpat Rai has been swallowed up in the maelstrom and hundreds more will follow
him, but their disappearance will make no difference either to the strength of
the movement or its velocity. Still it will move.
But, subject to this confidence and readiness to throw our all into the
gulf, we recognise the necessity of relying on our human judgment to guide us in
perplexity, leaving it to the Power behind to make our mistakes as useful,
perhaps more useful to the final
Page-391
success
than our wiser judgments. On one thing only we must lay fast hold, on the triple
unity of Swadeshi, Boycott and Swaraj. These must be pursued with unremitting
energy, and so long as we hold fast to them, we cannot go far wrong.
Bande
Mataram,
June 1, 1907
Page-392
Home
|