BY K. RAMAKOTISWARA RAU

The failure of the Cripps mission has further complicated the political situation in India. The Congress was doubtless acting in the best interests of the nation when it refused to accept office without power. All governmental activity in war-time is conditioned by the supreme need of defending the country against the enemy. And any political body wishing to assist in the formation of a war time administration must be permitted to organize Defence. It is clear from the statements of the Congress President, and the details furnished by Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya in his article to the present number of Triveni, that what led to the final breakdown of negotiations between Sir Stafford and the Congress Working Committee was the unwillingness of the British Government to transfer to an Indian Defence Minister any but the most inconsequential of the items connected with the Defence of India.

It is very problematical whether a prior settlement between the Congress and the Muslim League could have made a difference in the British attitude on the question of Defence. But it is possible to argue, as Sri C. Rajagopalachari has done, that a united Congress-League demand would have immensely strengthened the Indian position, and Britain might have hesitated to turn down such a demand, Sir Stafford’s statement at the Press Conference notwithstanding. Like many Congressmen, Sri C. Rajagopalachari pinned his faith to a National Government at the Centre and Coalition Cabinets in the Provinces. He was convinced that a Congress-League alliance would pave the way to such administrations. But he sprung a surprise on the Congress when he wanted it to admit, in advance, the right of the Muslim-majority Provinces to secede from any future Indian Union. Only on this basis, said he, could a National Government be formed,–a Government able to galvanise the nation, convert the war into a people’s war, and hurl back the invader.

The Congress is anxious, as ever, to come to an understanding with the League. It has always been in favour of the most ample safeguards for the protection of minorities, Muslim or non-Muslim. Possibly, in a scheme of Federation, it might even agree to the location of residuary powers in the Provinces. But it could not endorse Sri C. Rajagopalachari’s proposal which, like that of Sir S. Cripps, might, lead to the formation of two or more Indian Federations, and the eventual weakening of India’s power and status as a nation. By ceaseless propaganda in favour of his point of view, Sri C. Rajagopalachari has created conflict in the ranks of Congressmen. He has bewildered his followers without in any measure conciliating League opinion. The speeches of Chaudhuri Khaliquzzaman and the statements of Mr. Jinnah are not calculated to strengthen any nationalist’s faith in the bona fides of the League. A patched up peace cannot lead to any lasting good. The Lucknow Pact of 1916 was the source of unending communal trouble: separate electorates have fostered the feeling of a separate nationhood. It is time we cried, ‘halt’ and refused to be drawn into further concessions, opposed to the ideals of a robust nationalism. We are at the crossroads, and must choose aright

Whether the forthcoming meeting of the Working Committee will lead to some understanding between Sri C. Rajagopalachari and his erstwhile colleagues, and whether the recent talks between him and Mr. Jinnah at Bombay will induce the leader of the Muslim League to adopt a more reasonable attitude on the question of Pakistan, it is difficult to tell. Even these questions may cease to occupy public attention for long. The enemy is at the gates; no settlement has been arrived at between Britain and India regarding the transfer of power to Indian hands. Men’s minds are therefore exercised over the attitude they should adopt at this crisis, and the things they should or should not do. There is a great deal of sympathy for the Allies, more especially for Russia and China. The feeling is growing that, with or without arms, the invader must be resisted. When India becomes the battle-ground of contending Powers, we cannot remain mere spectators. The pressure of events will become too strong for us. Before danger envelopes the land, the Congress as the leading political organization must take the initiative and bring about a United National Front, somewhat in the manner suggested by Sri D. V. Gundappa. When the progressive elements in Indian public life effectively organize themselves; international opinion will range itself alongside of them.

There need be no longer any conflict of views on the question of ‘violence or non-violence’. The Congress has definitely accepted the view that, for purposes of defending the country against external invasion or internal disorder, resort may be had to force. Even the latest resolution of the A.I.C.C. at Allahabad lays stress on the fact that Britain has refused to let India arm herself. If the negotiations with Sir S. Cripps had succeeded, and the Congress had agreed to shoulder the burden of Defence, the cult of non-violence would not have come in the way of our participation in the war. It is clear that a stupendous effort must be made to compose our quarrel with Britain. Gandhiji’s suggestion that the British should withdraw in an orderly manner is but the obverse of the Congress attitude ever since the declaration of war,–that when power is transferred, a free India will align herself with the Democratic Powers, determine the course of the war and shape the peace that will herald a new world-order. All this is not impossible of achievement, once identity of interest is established between the Government and the people. In other words, there must be a people’s Government. Britain and America can keep their armies on Indian soil for the period of the war, and, as allies of a free India, assist in the defence of the country, which admittedly holds a key position in the East. This is the substance of Gandhiji’s demand, and a United National Front will provide the requisite strength to back that demand.

As one struggles through the darkened thoroughfares of a city where a ‘brown-out’ is practised, welcome relief is afforded by the islands of light interspersed between long stretches of utter darkness. These islands are symbols of hope; they indicate that, some day, the darkness will pass away. Meanwhile, the limited light that they are permitted to show forth must guide our footsteps ‘amidst the encircling gloom’. Institutions like the KalaKshetra at Adyar, the Uday Shankar Art-Centre at Almora, or the Kala-Bhavan at Santiniketan are such islands of light. Attempts made to keep them alive during a period of war and depression ought in no case to be discounted as a frittering away of money and man-power on ‘unessential’ pursuits. Even on a reduced scale, and with diminishing response from the public, these symbols of hope must continue to shed light. So too should the Universities and literary academies which are infinitely more precious than armament factories, if ultimate values are considered. The evil spirit of war can be exorcised from the lives of men only by holding on to ‘the things that are more excellent’ Gandhiji testified to this truth by personally collecting the funds needed for the successful working of Santiniketan.

Journals like the Viswa Bharati Quarterly, The Aryan Path and Triveni, devoted to the cause of culture, are on a similar footing. Any strength that is poured into them at the present moment of darkness will help to make the Light prevail. It was this faith that lay back of the effort to revive Triveni and to publish it from its new home in Bangalore. The words of welcome from The Aryan Path for May 1942 are therefore exceedingly heartening:

"It is with genuine gratification that we welcome the re-appearance of Triveni. After months of suspension, the first quarterly issue for 1942 has come out–the same Triveni, with the same skilful hand on the editorial helm, but published now from Bangalore instead of from Madras. It has survived numerous vicissitudes, from the political sentence served by Shri K. Ramakotiswara Rau to an acute paper shortage. It is a regrettable commentary on what we call modern civilisation that pure idealistic and cultural aims are a positive handicap to a journal in competing with journals conducted with the profit motive. The Aryan Path, with its idealistic aims, is in a position to sympathise. Our own emphasis is more on spirituality than on culture, more on wisdom in thought and nobility in conduct than on beauty of artistic expression, more on truth and goodness than on beauty. The three aspects of the Grecian Trinity are really inseparable, however, and Triveni, which lays primary emphasis upon the last, is complementing our own efforts.

"For, devoting itself to Art, Literature, and History, and, through its translations especially, helping to interpret to each other the various linguistic cultures of our country, Triveni ‘seeks to draw together cultured men and women in all lands’ and to ‘establish a fellowship of the spirit’. ‘All movements that make for Idealism, in India as well as elsewhere,’ are within its pure view, as they are within our own, and we are glad to commend Triveni’s effort to the lovers of culture in India and abroad."

BACK