Current Topics ¹

Most of the Indian delegates to the R. T. C., have come back home. Even the warmest advocates of the conference method will not contend that any striking success has been achieved. The Premier’s closing speeech at the plenary session does not take India any farther on the road to Swaraj or the substance of Swaraj. Much is sought to be made of the fact that a Conservative majority in Parliament is definitely committed to central responsibility and federation. There is no ‘going back’; hence, argue our friends, we must be deemed to have progressed. But was it for this that Gandhiji and the Congress called off the Civil Disobedience movement and agreed to participate in the discussions at St. James’s? The safeguards and reservations, the checks and balances, are all there, strongly entrenched behind pompous ministerial declarations. What is worse, the discussions in the Commons have made it clear that the period of transition will not terminate at a specified time or on the happening of particular events. Future progress is subject to the scrutiny and approval of Parliament at a later stage. That is to say, the new Government of India Act will not provide for the automatic expansion of ‘self-governing institutions’ into full Dominionhood.

The various delegations did not pull together. In fact, they pulled in opposite directions. The group of retired Civilians and satraps joined hands with the reactionary elements of the R. T. C. They did their precious work with such consummate skill, that it was made to appear that the Congress was just one out of a large number of Political organisations, and not the all-comprehending and overwhelmingly powerful institution, which it is. The strength behind the Indian demand is indeed the strength of the Congress. It was the Congress that declared non-violent war on the Government of India and put up a great fight. It was the Congress again that called off the fight and entered into a truce. But in the packed assembly round the table in London, the little little men wrangled endlessly and drowned the Nation’s voice. The fundamental problems relating to Defence, External Relations and Finance were hardly touched, mainly because the minor issues assumed an oppressive prominence. With the home-coming of the Nation’s plenipotentiary begins a new phase in the relations between India and England. Will the men in power at Delhi and Whitehall permit Gandhiji to offer the co-operation that he is yearning to? Or will they precipitate yet another struggle with a people anxious to be free?

It is the incurable habit of all dominant Governments, and particularly the British Government, to ride the twin-horses of repression and reform. They feel, almost intuitively, that any concession to the demands of a subject nation is apt to be mistaken for a sign of weakness. To preserve the appearance of firmness and decision, therefore, some repression must precede, accompany, and succeed every fresh step in constitutional development. Added to this is the belief that the moderate and ‘reasonable’ elements of the population could always be rallied through the reforms, that their moral support could be bespoken for ‘firm measures’. This plan succeeded partially in India during 1909 and 1921; but the universal boycott of the Simon Commission was a blow to all bureaucratic schemes of this complexion. But Governments must persevere; they must make a display of their unfortunate capacity for blundering. Thus on the one hand the personnel of the various committees of reform is being announced, and on the other, the Governor-General is issuing Ordinances at terrific speed. In Bengal and Guzerat, U. P. and Andhra, the Provincial Governments have paid scant regard to the peace-pact. Amongst officials, a spirit disregard of popular rights and liberties is evident. Gandhiji is patient and long-suffering, but the Bengal Ordinance has tried even his patience. "I have not the patience of a stone," says he. Unless wisdom and statesmanship are permitted to prevail, the future is unspeakably dark. The Rt. Hon. V. S. Srinivasa Sastri appealed to Gandhiji to stay his hands and to pursue the path of co-operation. Lord Irwin spoke in a similar strain in the House of Lords, urging the futility of repression. We are told that Government are anxious to secure Gandhiji's co-operation in the work of the Franchise and other Committees. But they have set about it the wrong way.

"Has Gandhiji succeeded in his English mission?" is the question usually asked nowadays. But there is no objective standard of success in this case. The main purpose of Gandhiji's trip to England was to present the Indian demand. His immediate auditors were the delegates to the R. T. C., but his words reached the entire world. Thoughtful men and women everywhere have learnt at first-hand the facts of the Indian situation. They know the moral fervour of the illustrious representative through whom the Indian problem has been raised to the level of a world-problem. The widest interest has been aroused in his gospel of Truth and Non-violence as the prime factors in this peaceful revolution. And whether it is peace or war, in the immediate future, the ultimate result can only be one–the dawn of Indian Freedom.