 |
 | SWARAJ IN ONE YEAR Swaraj in one year |  |
Much laughter has been indulged in at my
expense for having told the Congress audience
at Calcutta that if there was sufficient response
to my programme of non-co-operation Swaraj
would be attained in one year. Some have
ignored my condition and laughed because of
the impossibility of getting Swaraj anyhow
within one year. Others have spelt the `if'
in capitals and suggested that if `ifs' were
permissible in argument, any absurdity could
be proved to be a possibility. My proposition
however is based on a mathematical
calculation. And I venture to say that true
Swaraj is a practical impossibility without
due fulfilment of my conditions. Swaraj
means a state such that we can maintain our
separate existence without the presence of the
English. If it is to be a partnership, it must
be a partnership at will. There can be no
Swaraj without our feeling and being the equals
of Englishmen. To-day we feel that we are
dependent upon them for our internal and
external security, for an armed peace between
and for the supply of daily wants, nay,
even for the settlement of our religious
squabbles. The Rajahs are dependant upon
the British for their powers and millionaires
for their millions. The British know our
helplessness and Sir Thomas Holland
cracks jokes quite legitimately at the expense
of non-co-operationists. To get Swaraj
then is to get rid of our helplessness. The
problem is no doubt stupendous even as it
is for the fabled lion who having been brought
up in the company of goats found it impossible
to feel that he was a lion. As Tolstoy used
to put it, mankind often laboured under
bypnotism. Under its spell continuously we
feel the feeling of helplessness. The British
themselves cannot be expected to help us out
of it. On the contrary, they din into our
ears that we shall be fit to govern ourselves
only by slow educative processes. The
"Times" suggested that if we boycott the
councils we shall lose the opportunity of a
training in Swaraj. I have no doubt that there
are many who believe what the "Times" says.
It even resorts to a falsehood. It audaciously
says that Lord Milner's Mission listened to the
the boycott of the Egyptian Council. For me
the only training in Swaraj we need is the
ability to defend ourselves against the whole
world and to live our natural life in perfect freedom
even though it may be full of defects.
Good government is no substitute for self-government.
The Afghans have a bad government
but it is self-government. I envy them.
The Japanese learnt the art through a sea of
blood. And if we to-day had the power to drive
out the English by superior brute-force, we
would be counted their superiors, and in spite
of our inexperience in debating at the Council
table or in holding executive offices, we
would be held fit to govern ourselves.
For brute-force is the only test the West has
hitherto recognised. The Germans were defeated
not because they were necessarily in the
wrong, but because the allied Powers were found
to possess greater brute strength. In the end
therefore India must either learn the art of war
which the British will not teach her or she
must follow her own way of discipline and self-sacrifice
through non-co-operation. It is as
amazing as it is humiliating that less than one
hundred thousand white men should be able to
Indians. They do so somewhat undoubtedly
by force but more by securing our co-operation
in a thousand ways and making us more and
more helpless and dependent on them as time
goes forward. Let us not mistake reformed
councils more law-courts and even governorships
for real freedom or power. They are but
subtler methods of emasculation. The British
cannot rule us by mere force. And so they
resort to all means, honourable and dishonourable,
in order to retain their hold on India. They
want India's billions and they want India's
man power for their imperialistic greed. If we
refuse to supply them with men and money,
we achieve our goal, namely, Swaraj, equality,
manliness.
The cup of our humiliation was filled
during the closing scenes in the Viceregal
council. Mr. Shastri could not move his
resolution on the Punjab. The Indian victims
of Jallianwalla received Rs. 1,250, the English
victims of mobfrenzy received lacs. The
officials who were guilty of crimes against
those whose servants they were, were reprimanded.
And the councillors were satisfied.
If India were powerful, India would not
injury.
I do not blame the British. If we were
weak in numbers as they are, we too would
perhaps have resorted to the same methods as
they are now employing. Terrorism and deception
are weapons not of the strong but of the
weak. The British are weak in numbers, we
are weak in spite of our numbers. The result
is that each is dragging the other down. It is
common experience that Englishmen lose in
character after residence in India, and that
Indians lose in courage and manliness by
contact with Englishmen. This process of
weakening is good neither for us, two nations,
nor for the world.
But if we Indians take care of ourselves the
English and the rest of the world would take
care of themselves. Our contribution to the
world's progress must therefore consist in setting
our own house in order.
Training in arms for the present is out of
the question. I go a step further and believe
that India has a better mission for the world.
It is within her power to show that she can
achieve her destiny by pure self-sacrifice, i.e.,
self-purification. This can be done only by
possible only when those who commenced to
co-operate begin the process of withdrawal. If
we can but free ourselves from the threefold
maya of Government controlled schools,
Government law-courts and legislative councils,
and truly control our own education, regulate
our disputes and be indifferent to their
legislation, we are ready to govern ourselves,
and we are only then ready to ask Government
servants, whether civil or military, to resign,
and the ta-xpayers to suspend payment of
taxes.
And is it such an impracticable proposition
to expect parents to withdraw their children
from schools and colleges and establish their
own institutions or to ask lawyers to suspend
their practice and devote their whole time
and attention to national service against
payment, where necessary, of their maintenance,
or to ask candidates for councils
not to enter councils and lend their passive or
active assistance to the legislative machinery
through which all control is exercised. The
movement of non-co-operation is nothing but
an attempt to isolate the brute-force of the
British from all the trappings under which it
itself cannot, for one single moment, hold
India.
But I frankly confess that, until the three
conditions mentioned by me are fulfilled, there
is no Swaraj. We may not go on taking our
college degrees, taking thousands of rupees
monthly from clients for cases which can be
finished in five minutes and taking the keenest
delight in wasting national time on the council
floor and still expect to gain national self-respect.
The last though not the least important
part of the Maya still remains to be considered.
That is Swadeshi. Had we not abandoned
Swadeshi, we need not have been in the
present fallen state. If we would get rid of the
economic slavery, we must manufacture our
own cloth and at the present moment only by
hand-spinning and hand weaving.
All this means discipline, self-denial, self-sacrifice,
organising ability, confidence and
courage. If we show this in one year among
the classes that to-day count, and make public
opinion, certainly gain Swaraj within a one
year. If I am told that even we who lead
have not these qualities in us, there certainly
shall have no right to blame the English
for what they are doing. Our salvation and
its time are solely dependent upon us.
| SWARAJ IN ONE YEAR Swaraj in one year | |