Sri Aurobindo. The Aims of the Nationalist Party // Bande Mataram: Political Writings and Speeches. 1890

Sri Aurobindo

Bande Mataram

Political Writings and Speeches. 1890–1908

Part Five. Speeches (22 December 1907 – 1 February 1908)

The Aims of the Nationalist Party¹

My dear countrymen, when I stopped here on my way to Surat I spoke a few words to you. The Congress had not taken place then. I merely pointed out the course our line of action should take at the Surat Congress. The motives and hopes with which we went to Surat were unfortunately not realised. But we are helpless in the matter. Several partisan papers have already begun to pass remarks such as “The Nationalist party assembled at Surat solely with the purpose of breaking up the Congress”, “It did not want the Congress”, and “It had a premeditated intention of wrecking it.” But I ask you, What advantage would the Nationalist party derive from destroying the Congress? The Nationalist party wanted the Congress; we required it for the purpose of disseminating our nationalist views. What would we gain by breaking it up?

Several letters have appeared about the Congress from many leaders of the old party. One of them has remarked that the Bengal Nationalists received from their headquarters a wire to the following effect: “Break up the Congress if everything else fails.” We were greatly surprised to hear that such a telegram had been received. Nationalism has no headquarters in any one town. It is neither at Calcutta nor at Poona; it is spread all over the nation. The whole nation is the seat of Nationalism. Since this is so, we have to ask the Moderates what is meant by the expression “headquarters at Calcutta”. Who sent that wire? The leaders of the Nationalist party in Bengal – our leaders – are the very headquarters of Nationalism. From this standpoint, which of our headquarters had been left behind? If we regard the leaders as the headquarters, one of them is at Buxar at present and the other was at Surat! No such telegram was received by the Nationalist party. The above statement is entirely false. The Nationalist party did not want to wreck the Congress and it never did. I do not blame anyone. But I ask, What were we to gain by wrecking the Congress? It was not the case that² Government would have been displeased³ if we severed⁴ our connection⁵ with the other party by wrecking the Congress. Where did we get the desire to rally round the British flag by cutting off our connection with the other party? If we consider the three issues raised in the debate of this year’s Congress, it will be possible to decide who was responsible for the wrecking of the Congress.

Every member of any public institution started and managed by the people of any civilised⁶ nation is given full liberty to offer his opinion on any question, in accordance with the universally acknowledged rules of all public institutions. No president has the authority to suppress this liberty – this natural right of every member of society. The president is merely a servant of the meeting formed by the coming together of the people who appoint him. There are rules to regulate his conduct. No president should break these rules. He cannot stifle freedom of speech and liberty of opinion. When such is the universally acknowledged rule, who then tried to snatch away the rights of a member? Was it the Nationalist party or the other party? Who transgressed the universally accepted rule of meetings by not allowing the leader of our party to speak, though timely notice was given by him? Did we do this? Those who say that we went to the Congress with the intention of wrecking it should think over this question.

Another important thing is that the Congress is an institution belonging to all Indians – to all the well-wishers of the nation. Whoever exerts himself for the good of the nation ought to get a place in this institution. Whoever has to push forward the cart of the nation, whoever is desirous of procuring happiness and as much liberty as is possible for his country to get, ought to be able to enter this institution. The ideal of one may be less exalted, while that of another more exalted, and that of the third most exalted. But since “the good of the nation” is the common object of all, everyone ought to be included in that institution. One party may defeat the other on the strength of a majority of votes and establish its own superiority. If the other party has any stamina or mettle, it will live and fight. But none should try to drive away any party from the institution by taking advantage of a local majority formed according to his own wishes. It is clear that the other party had the majority at Surat. Was it not the attempt of the Moderate party to drive the⁷ Nationalist party out of⁸ the Congress from next year by taking advantage of this local majority? Why should the opinion of one party that such is the particular goal of our nation be fastened on to the other party? It is not that the ultimate aim of our political agitation should be one and the same for all. One may be in advance of the other. Was it not a fact that in the resolution of this year’s constitution they were going to fasten on the Nationalist party a “final goal” which was unacceptable to it? It is a mockery of the opinions of the Nationalists to make them sign a paper containing false principles of Nationalism which are not acceptable to them. Who has the right to thrust his own idea of the “final goal” upon others and, if they do not consent, to drive them out of the meeting? Mr. Gokhale knew that one particular party did not accept as the final goal partial Swarajya and slow reform⁹. Still, in the draft he had prepared of the constitution, he tried to thrust the final goal of one particular party upon another and to drive out the latter from the Congress. The meaning of the new rule made by Mr. Gokhale was “Accept a certain final goal, otherwise you have no place in the Congress and out you go.” I ask those who say that our intention was to wreck the Congress, Is it not necessary to include people of different views in the National Congress? Was it not the intention of the other party to drive out of¹⁰ the Congress those whose final goal is different from that of Mr. Gokhale, but who still belong to that party which has national well-being at heart? Only those resolutions that are universally acceptable or acceptable to many will be passed. But none should attempt to forcibly¹¹ eject another because his views do not tally with his own. Did the Nationalist party make any such attempt? Who were intolerant towards those who held views different from their own? To whom did the presence of another party become unbearable in the Congress, the Moderates or the Extremists? This trick of driving out the opposite party was played by the Moderates and not by the Extremists. This being so¹², did the Nationalist party break up the National Congress?

The third important question is with regard to the retrogression of the Congress. We, the Nationalists, went to Surat to help the Congress progress by means of spiritedness, steadiness, and self-reliance. Our desire was, and is, that the fixed determination – the¹³ austere vow – which the Bengali nation has resolved upon in its helplessness might spread to other provinces as well, and the people of those provinces might help us in our contest. Our ambition was to get tangible help from other provinces in our¹⁴ peaceful but determined contest. But we found all but one of the subjects omitted from this year’s resolutions published in the name of the Reception Committee. These were subjects for which we fought zealously¹⁵ in the Calcutta Congress. What then of pushing the Congress forward? We became anxious to see whether it would remain where it was. Subjects were entirely omitted, and we cannot say whether they were introduced subsequently after¹⁶ making sweeping changes in them and rendering them vague whenever¹⁷ an objection from the Nationalists was anticipated, or whether the subjects which were thus mutilated and with the names suppressed were put in from the beginning. But on the list which was sent to Bombay on the 25th December 1907, but which was given to us on the 26th, that is, after the opening of the Congress, we found the subjects greatly mutilated.

Mr. Gokhale states that the changes they introduced in the resolutions of last year were merely trivial and verbal and were made to make the meaning clear and to put them in better language. It is surprising to find that a man like Mr. Gokhale says so! The resolution of Swarajya was passed last year at Calcutta. I have already told you how the final goal, which was clearly laid down in that resolution, has been rendered doubtful and insignificant by the introduction of the¹⁸ Creed resolution by Mr. Gokhale. The resolution about Swadeshi was also found greatly pruned down. What great efforts the Nationalists had to make last year simply to introduce the words “even at some sacrifice”! By the introduction of these words the compromise was effected last year. These words were acceptable to both parties. Mr. Gokhale says they were inadvertently omitted. We could not reconcile with the past history of these words the fact of their omission by mistake or forgetfulness by Mr. Gokhale. Last year, when the people of both parties had assembled to settle their differences of opinion, I also had the opportunity to be present. Mr. Tilak, Aswini¹⁹ Babu and myself were the three representatives for our side. The opposite side was represented by Mr. Gokhale and Mr. Madan Mohan Malaviya. After a discussion among²⁰ us five it was settled to add the words “even at some sacrifice”. We could never believe that these words, which had been purposely put in, were omitted inadvertently. It cannot be said that we are doing an injustice to Mr. Gokhale if we infer, by looking at the radical changes made to the second resolution, that the words had been purposely omitted. How do we know that Mr. Gokhale, one of the General Secretaries, could not find out from the files of any newspaper the correct resolution? It is true that we did not think that Mr. Gokhale might forget the words even though they were introduced in the committee of the above-mentioned five persons.

Mr. Gokhale made such sweeping changes as would destroy the meaning of the boycott resolution and make²¹ the weapon of boycott adopted by the Bengalis appear to apply only to English-made goods. The boycott movement inaugurated in Bengal has a wider significance than the boycott of British goods resorted to in Bengal. Taking the word “movement” to mean activity, Babu Bipin Chandra Pal expressed the hope before last year’s Congress that the boycott movement would travel from one point to another, from one village to another, and from one province to another. Was it not the intention of Mr. Gokhale to cripple this resolution by altering its meaning? Even a superficial observer can see that the agitation in Bengal was not confined to British goods. When Government proclaimed the Partition, we distinctly informed Government that this Partition was not acceptable to us. We adopted a universal boycott, which showed our disapproval of the Partition. It is known throughout India that our boycott means passive resistance. If the boycott was with regard to English goods only, then why have honourable and spirited Bengali gentlemen resigned their seats in the Councils? Were the boycott in Bengal confined to goods only, were it merely a²² commercial boycott, where was the necessity of boycotting Government schools? It is true that Bengal has boycotted English goods. But that was merely a subsidiary part of the all-pervading boycott. One thing must be borne in mind here, that the boycott of foreign goods is merely a commercial one, while that which is applied to English goods is of a political nature. There is no necessity of applying²³ these political weapons to any other country besides Britain. Why should we take revenge²⁴ upon America or²⁵ Germany for the oppression caused to us by the people of Britain? The reason we do not buy or will not in future buy²⁶ German or²⁷ American goods is in order to increase²⁸ Indian trades and industries. But there is a political reason besides this for the boycott of British goods; it is to make the brethren of our oppressors feel the pinch.

The boycott adopted by Bengal is of a different type, its scope²⁹ and its extent³⁰ are far-reaching. The meaning of our boycott is that we should not be of any help to Government in its administration carried on by unjust and uncontrolled authority. This is so plain that it could be seen by anyone possessing eyes. Mr. Gokhale knew that we had started such a boycott. He purposely tried to create the impression that the Bengal boycott was directed against English goods only. Or his intention might have been to show that the Surat Congress at least accepted Bengal’s boycott to that extent. The changes that were made in last³¹ year’s resolution were very important and of a retrograde nature, from the standpoint of the Bengal Nationalists at least. And yet Mr. Gokhale says that the changes introduced were merely trivial and verbal. To him the changes may be very trivial, but it is impossible for the Bengal Nationalists to regard them as such. We did not at all like the flimsy picture drawn by Mr. Gokhale of the all-pervading boycott for the spread of which we – particularly³² the people of Eastern Bengal – had to suffer so much. Boys received stripes, many of them suffered physical pangs in jail, and several others gave up everything. We did not like Mr. Gokhale’s intention of giving a commercial appearance to our boycott. We fought zealously in order to secure sincere sympathy and suffered prosecutions, and this mode of passive resistance received support from the National Congress last year. By taking away that support, Mr. Gokhale³³ rendered the resolution ineffectual; yet in the face of this open attempt, he says that the changes made were merely verbal.

He substituted the words “independent system” for the more important words “on national lines and under national control” in the resolution on national education. Mr. Gokhale says that the word “national” occurred thrice in the resolution and this did not sound well, so the changes in the wording were made. Mr. Gokhale is a scholar of English, but we see a particular motive in repeating the word “national” thrice. An independent system of education may include education imparted by semi-government schools or colleges which receive government aid. But the words “on national lines” and “under national control” appeared to Mr. Gokhale as meaningless and superfluous, so he corrected the bad English sentence by putting it in good English in order to obtain some elegance of expression. There would have been no harm done, except slightly lowering Mr. Gokhale’s reputation for knowledge³⁴ of English, if he had allowed the bad English to stand, as he knew that the Nationalist party would be displeased, and actually was displeased, at the change of language – this trivial verbal change made solely with a view to improving the elegance of style. The object of the Congress is not to enable men to write English correctly and elegantly. If slightly bad language would satisfy³⁵ all, what harm would³⁶ there be in³⁷ allowing it to stand? It would be regarding the Nationalist party as ignorant and dull-headed³⁸ to say that such a material change in the resolution would be accepted by it as merely verbal.

These three questions are before those who say that our intention was to wreck the Congress. Who tried to destroy unconstitutionally the rights of members to speak? The Nationalist party? Who made the ignoble attempt to drop out or drive out people of a particular opinion from the Congress by making rules partial to the constitutional party? The Nationalist party? Whose desire was it to put back the Congress by making changes in the resolutions passed universally on the strength of a local majority? The Nationalist party? These are important points. This year’s fight in the Congress was between the ordinary people and unrestricted authority. It was a fight for principle in one way. How is it possible to put up with the arbitrariness of some people in a Congress which itself passes resolutions against the oppression of Government? The confusion that took place in the Congress was due to the peculiar circumstances of this year. It is not the fault of Mr. Tilak or of the Nationalist party. Whether there will be compromise or not, whether³⁹ it will be possible to have any, will be decided by time alone. Our Nationalist party has to perform a very great task in the future. There are mountains of obstacles and difficulties in the way. Immense troubles will have to be suffered, hard work will have to be done and everything will have to be sacrificed; a great many will have to sacrifice their lives, then only will we be able to obtain that which is our final and exalted goal, the realisation of all happiness, the final achievement of all that is to be achieved and the desired object of all – Swarajya.

I shall speak tomorrow on what is to be done in the future⁴⁰.

Earlier edition of this work: Archives and Research: A biannual journal.- Volume 4, No2 (1980, December)

¹ Delivered in Nagpur on 30 January 1908. This and the next two speeches were translated into Marathi and published as a pamphlet. The Marathi texts were later retranslated into English and reproduced in a Government of India Home Department file.