BY K. RAMAKOTISWARA RAU ¹

When the Working Committee of the Congress issued a dignified and closely reasoned statement on the war, it was generally expected that it would elicit an equally dignified reply from British statesmen. Considerable disappointment was caused when the Secretary of State complained that the Indian leaders were trying to embarrass Britain by raising inconvenient issues like the freedom of India. The Viceroy, however, had already sent for Gandhiji and the Congress leaders, and Lord Zetland’s ill-timed outburst was not permitted to interfere with the normal course of negotiations. Then followed other interviews between the Viceroy and the representatives of sectional and communal interests, who claimed that they had a right to be consulted before a final decision about India’s status was reached. These interviews have not yet ended; it is not likely that the Viceroy, in consultation with Whitehall, will be able to make a declaration of the War and Peace aims of Britain, with particular reference to India, before the end of this month. Meanwhile, the All-India Congress Committee, which met at Wardha early this week, has endorsed the previous statement of the Working Committee, and authorised that body and its War-Sub-committee to keep in touch with the Viceroy and do everything necessary for the fulfillment of the nation’s objective of independence.

At different stages of its evolution, the Congress has been faced with a choice between co-operation and non-co-operation with Britain. At Surat, in 1907, a section of Congressmen cut themselves off from the parent body on the ground that the policy and programme of the dominant group was not sufficiently progressive. But they came back in 1916, and the foremost among them–Lokamanya Tilak–offered responsive co-operation. At Calcutta, in 1920, another section seceded from the Congress because they felt that Gandhiji and his followers were rushing headlong into uncharted regions. But today these Liberals are in substantial agreement with the Congress in demanding that India’s case shall be pressed. Between the Liberals and some of the Right-wing Congressmen there is a similarity of outlook, in that they instinctively prefer the way of peace and of constructive statesmanship. The difference, however, is that even such Right-wingers will adhere to a programme of direct action, if such action should prove inevitable. Within the last three years, and particularly after Tripuri, the Leftist elements in the Congress have become more vocal, and also better organised, and every day that passes seems to widen the gulf between them and the Right. The Leftists are not enamoured of any negotiations with the British, and they are convinced that direct action is imperative. Their preference for a fight is as instinctive as that of the Rightists for peace. Judging from the statements of Sjt. Bose and other leaders of the Left, they wish to carry on anti-war propaganda, irrespective of the decision of the main body of Congressmen. They may even go out of the Congress, if the Congress enters into a compromise with the British. Such a step is fraught with grave consequences, but, in the present temper of the Leftists, not even the able advocacy of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru will carry conviction to several amongst them.

This brings us to the part played by the Pandit within recent months. He is the hero whom everyone considers as the rightful successor of Gandhiji in the leadership of the national struggle. He was almost solely responsible for the draft of the Working Committee’s statement, for explaining its implications to the Viceroy, and for piloting it through the All- India Congress Committee. Whether it is peace or war, negotiation or direct action, the Pandit will play the dominant role. Among certain sections of the Left, he wields even greater influence than Sjt. Bose. There is a general feeling in the country that any war-time settlement with Britain which satisfies Pandit Jawaharlal ought also to satisfy an overwhelming majority of Indians. Everything therefore turns on the Pandit’s reaction to the forthcoming declaration of the Viceroy.

Before that declaration is made, the Viceroy must realise that the Congress is the only organisation entitled to speak on behalf of the entire nation. There is nothing lost in ascertaining the views of the non-Congress leaders, though it cannot be said that very much will be gained. The Muslim League represents but a section, though a large one, of the Muslims. The League and other bodies, organised or amorphous, whose representatives are being consulted by the Viceroy, should bear in mind that the Congress has all along pledged itself to safe-guard the legitimate interests of the Minorities. The peace formula that may ultimately be evolved will be a formula arrived at between the British and the Congress. Other interests will fall into their places in the scheme of Swaraj which a Constituent Assembly will hammer into shape under the leaderhhip of the Congress. But they can neither delay nor obstruct the national will.

Sjt. Bose charges the present Congress leadership with indecision, inaction, and lack of foresight. If only the Congress had followed his lead at Tripuri and given a six months’ ultimatum to the British Government in respect of the national demand, it would not now be caught napping; an intensive, nation-wide campaign could easily have been launched, the moment war was declared in Europe. Such charges can only give rise to counter-charges of haste, inexperience, and failure to recognise facts. Before and after Tripuri, Gandhiji was positive that the requisite atmosphere for a non-violent fight was lacking, and that he could not assume responsibility for any decision which committed the nation automatically to a programme of conflict with the Government at the end of a prescribed period. An ultimatum, by itself, will not create the sinews of war; in the case of a fight like India’s since 1920, any premature conflict with Government might result in a general demoralisation. This was the view which prevailed at Tripuri. It was strengthened by another important consideration. The Parliamentary programme was yet on trial, and any ill-considered break in its course was bound to adversely affect the future of the nation. It was not as if the Rightist leaders were unaware of the possibility of a war in Europe, or that they were less keen than others on action in furtherance of the national demand. When war actually broke out, the Working Committee was not napping. It held consultations with celerity, and interpreted the nation’s attitude with admirable clarity. Theirs was not a policy of "Wait and see," but one of intense awareness. They read the signs of the times aright, took stock of the situation at home and abroad, and expressed readiness to negotiate when negotiations seemed likely to prove fruitful. It is a trifle too early to convict them of failure. Even if the present negotiations should prove abortive, world opinion will applaud the Congress for showing a willingness to treat, instead of plunging the country into a fight whose end no one could envisage.

October is the month in which all India celebrates the birthday of Gandhiji, and pays its homage to the saint and statesman whose life is a landmark in world-history. Wherever Indians are gathered on this festive occasion, they remind themselves that a mighty soul transformed their lives and regenerated a whole nation. Men and women of other nationalities join every year in felicitating this apostle of truth and non-violence. This year, in particular, the declaration of war in Europe has given special significance to the Mahatma’s gospel, for it is being felt in an increasing measure that a way out of this perpetual conflict between nations must be found. In his philosophy of life, individual and national, Gandhiji emphasises the path of sacrifice and suffering as a means of purification. The supremacy of the spirit over the flesh is the aim of all religious striving; but its application to the day-to-day life of nations is Gandhiji’s unique contribution. To him, the achievement of India’s freedom is but an incident in the great process of reclaiming the world from hate to love, from bondage to freedom.

The 1st of October is the birthday of another great soul whose life was given to the service of humanity. Dr. Besant loved India as indeed very few of her own children have loved, in this or in previous ages. History furnishes no parallel to her career. There was no sphere of human endeavour in which she did not play a distinguished part. With remarkable insight, she realised that the cultural and political redemption of India was essential if world-unity and world-progress was to be achieved. She inspired her followers with her own zeal, and weaned them from the pursuit of selfish ends to utter dedication to great causes. It is worthy of note that some of the Indian stalwarts of today had their first contact with public life in the stirring times of the Home Rule agitation: Pandit Jawaharlal was a Home Ruler before he came under the influence of Gandhiji. The Besant tradition in Indian public life was as purifying and ennobling as the Gandhi tradition which we value so greatly.

The cinema has thrown the stage so much into the shade that few Telugu dramas are being written. The improvised plays broadcast by the Madras Centre of the All-India Radio sometimes attain a high literary level, but, being attuned to a different technique, they are not quite the plays for production on the stage. There are talented actors in Andhra who are obliged to appear time and again in the same old roles in the same old plays. Several of them have been drawn of to the screen, so that for the moment it looks as if the Telugu literary drama will fast disappear for want of actors who will enact such plays. But the desire for the drama persists among the public, and when a first-rate playwright emerges, he is at once recognised.

Sjt. Veluri Chandrasekharam’s ‘Kanchanamala’ is a conspicuous instance of literary talent allied to a keen perception of the needs of the modern theatre. The theme is an old one–the love of Asoka’s queen, Tisyarakshita, for the Prince Kunala, and the Prince’s devotion to Kanchanamala. This well-worn theme is moulded by the author into a thing of beauty, Except for a few songs, the play is entirely in prose of chiselled grace and dignity. At times, it borders on the archaic, but I imagine it is part of the technique needed to re-create the atmosphere of a by-gone age. The emperor himself does not appear in the play; otherwise, he would overshadow the other characters. Kunala, Kanchanamala, and the guilty queen are drawn with great power, and with an intimate knowledge of human nature. The plot unfolds slowly, but there is a definite quickening of movement as the play proceeds, till the final catastrophe of the blinding of Kunala and the suicide of the queen overwhelms the audience by its tragic intensity. A note of hope is sounded by the young lovers. The blinded Kunala says:

"Show me the way, Kanchana. To me, life is perpetual darkness; in that darkness, my Kanchana is the light that never sets, Kanchana is the eye of the blind Kunala,"

And Kanchanamala replies:

"Hold fast to me, Kunala. Even Death cannot loosen this hold."

This play was enacted two or three times by a group of amateur actors of Masulipatam and created a profound impression. It is hoped that ‘Kanchanamala’ marks the beginning of a new movement for the revival of the high-class literary play in Telugu under the auspices of amateur theatres. ²

1 12th October.