How we view the Convention and the Congress in Calcutta depends entirely upon our own bent of mind. Not all the citizens of a country are sedate in temperament and sober in judgment. Nor are all adventurers. But he who runs may at once say that the struggle in Calcutta is between the old and the new, between the apostles of non-violence and the votaries of liberty to strive for Swaraj by all legitimate means. Indeed such amendments to the creed have been tabled, though they are merely of strategic value to force the way of more innocuous changes. The old, old Moderates are still doubting whether or not to plump for Dominion status at a bound. The younger patriots are for Independence at all costs. Those who are in between hold the balance even. But it requires only a straw to make the beam kick in favour of adventure and hazard. They that are slaves, and feel their slavery intensely, stand to gain nothing by mere ‘law and order,’ and equally stand to lose nothing by revolt–except the chains of their slavery. We have no wish to go into the merits and demerits of the issues raised by the compromise in Calcutta, but this much is obvious to everybody–namely, that if the resolution embodies an ultimatum to Government, the resolve that lies behind it is equally an ultimatum to Britain. Even Gandhi feels that he cannot hold his team. The yoke is heavy and it would be thrown off at all costs.

But hard words have broken no bones, much less Governments. Nor can harder resolutions be taken seriously by these hardest headed Englishmen, unless there is a strong backing behind the nation's resolve. A year is none too long for preparatory work. But it is none too short either. As Lloyd George said, the progress of centuries can be condensed into decades and years under the impulse of national stress. The country need not go through the alphabet of non-co-operation in order to furnish first lessons in non-payment of taxes. When the mirasdars of Tanjore and the peasants of Bardoli can hold the Government at bay, the middle-class ryot can equally play the game. And too nothing succeeds like success. The very resolution of the Congress speaks only of ‘organising,’ not ‘reviving’ non-violent non-co-operation, by advising the refusal of the payment of taxes and other aids to Government. That the latter wording is changed means not that the idea underlying it is given up. The spirit of revolt is abroad. In the old, it is impotent and is stifled. In the middle-aged, it is lost in its struggle for expression. In the young, it is vocal and vociferous and no force on earth may succeed in silencing it or smothering it.

S. P.

The Unity of Chicago, as representing the better mind of America offers a warm welcome to Sarojini Devi, the unofficial Ambassador of India:

The presence in America of Mme. Naidu, of India, the friend and colleague of Mahatma Gandhi, is an occasion of profound congratulation. Her noble person should be seen and her eloquent speech heard in every corner of the land. In herself, she is one of the great women of the world. She radiates a power of intellect and spirit which marks her immediately as one of the supreme leaders of our time. But it is as an Indian, a representative of her stricken yet unconquerable country, that she is chiefly important, and would. We are sure, be recognized and heeded. Among her own countrymen, she is honored as one of their greatest poets, a singer of the songs of a people for liberty and peace. She is also trusted and followed as a statesman who in 1925-26 was raised to the highest national office in her land as President of the All-India Congress of that year. Nobly born, highly cultured, utterly consecrated, dowered with supreme gifts of intellect and will, she stands in the forefront of India's life as defender of her people's rights and champion of their larger destiny. To America she has now come to bear witness to the truth about India, so sadly maligned and therefore misunderstood, and to plead her cause before the tribunal of an instructed and awakened public opinion. Unity salutes Mme. Naidu with humble admiration. It welcomes her to this country which needs only to be taught in order to be won. We have known in these United States the struggle for liberty. We possess the tradition of blood and treasure bounteously spent for release from tyranny. In our pride we may have grown callous, and in our prosperity selfish. But the heart of the nation still beats true to its ideals. We know of no one better equipped to reach that heart by power of thought and speech than Mme. Naidu. America will leap to her when she finds audiences.

The dissolution of the Yugo-Slavian constitution by Royal Edict is the culmination of nearly a decade of internecine racial jealousies and acerbities. King Alexander, who had, since the foundation of the Triune Kingdom as a result of the post-war re-mapping of Europe, witnessed bitter and sometimes bloody wrangles among the races, Croats, Serbs, Slavs, took the law into his own hands and by breaking the parliamentary constitution with all its paraphernalia of representative institutions and party factions, brought peace to the people. The most offended Croats welcome this military dictatorship which King Alexander proclaimed by dissolving the cabinet and appointing General Zifkovitch, who was unconnected with politics, Commander of the Royal Guard. Doctor Matsocheck, leader of the Croats, is reported to have said that "the fetters have been burst, the constitution which for seven years ‘blessed’ the Croatians has been abolished, and thanks to the wisdom of the monarch, we shall now succeed in attaining the ideals of the Croatian people and will really be masters in the house of Free Croatia". What bitterness of feeling, what anguish of political suppression lay behind the words can well be imagined. King Alexander has taken the bold step that previously had been taken in Spain, in Italy, in Egypt, in Poland and in Greece. The new Yugo-Slavian Cabinet is responsible to the King in whom is vested all power. He represents the State in all foreign relations and the Ministers derive their authority from, and are responsible to, the King, and the law goes forth from the King and will be promulgated by a decree countersigned by the Prime-Minister, the Minister directly concerned, and the Minister of Justice. We are tempted in moments like these to doubt if the war-drunk and violence-ridden West is fit for responsible Government. The wrangle of races in Yugo-Slavia, political murders and political maneuvers could not be allayed by the federal constitution they enjoyed and the parliamentary form of Government. How much the creed of non-violence would have effected political tranquility and racial harmony is indirectly demonstrated, and the shibboleth that the West is the best promoter of parliamentary institutions is blown to the winds. In the West, national evolution means revolutions, and political consolidation must be the result of political turmoil, and peace can only be the fruit of war. And if the West takes a lesson from India, as it has taken lessons before, peace of an enduring nature can be built on the sound foundations of non-violence.

The abdication of King Amanullah comes with a shocking suddenness to those who have been closely following a career of selfless devotion to the people, of strenuous service to the nation, of noble aims, and high aspirations. For the first time in Afghan history, a King of Afghanistan visited Europe, where he was received with royal pomp and grandeur as the first Eastern potentate, imbued with a love of the science and civilization of the West. But Afghanistan, led by the Mullahs and Moulvis, resented the Reforms His Majesty had introduced, and rebellion ensued with all its wreckage and carnage, bloodshed, and bitterness. The religion of conservatism, so deep-rooted amongst the Afghan tribesman, roused the ‘Shin waris’ against the tearing of the purdah, against Western science and education, and the new laws governing recruitment to the army; and after protracted and perilous fight between the King's forces and the rebels, evacuation of foreigners, sieges and counter-sieges, King Amanullah abdicated the throne in favour of his elder brother. Thus comes to a dramatic close the career of a King whose love of his subjects was the prime Concern of his life and who wanted to import western culture and thereby enrich the culture of his own land. What is at the root of all this trouble? Is it the unreasoning love of the native institutions and the incapacity to appreciate and imbibe what is good outside? Will Afghanistan, which would have, under the aegis of King Amanullah, developed into a potent factor in the future federation of Asia, relapse into its primitive placidity and stagnation? We hope not. Time may have yet other surprises in store, and King Amanullah chastened by experience and grown more cautious in his zeal for reform, may once again come into his own, and realise his brilliant dreams.

M.V.R.