Presidential Address to the Special Session of the Indian National Congress, Calcutta

[…] Lajpat Rai thanks the delegates and recalls Calcutta's place in Indian nationalism.

A GREAT STRUGGLE

It was with great reluctance that I made up my mind to accept the call of duty to which the All India Congress Committee by its decision invited me. Our politics are no more of the old humdrum kind, about which practically there was no, or if at all very little difference of opinion. We are no longer contented with resolutions, prayers and memorials. We have advanced beyond the [p. 23] first stage of very humble submission, have crossed the boundaries of respectful demand, and have entered into the arena of backing our demands by vigorous and compelling action of a peaceful kind. The country is at the present moment in the throes of a momentous struggle. The Anglo-Indian press has designated it as revolutionary. There are many people to whom the word revolution is like a red rag to a bull. I am not one of them. Words do not scare me. It is no use blinking the fact that we are passing through a revolutionary period, nay, we are already in the grip of a mighty revolution, a comprehensive and all-covering one, religious, intellectual, educational, social, economic and political. We are by instinct and tradition averse to revolutions. Traditionally, we are a slow going people; but when we decide to move, we do move quickly and by rapid strides. No living organism can altogether escape revolutions in the course of its existence. Our national history records many such. But the revolutionary struggle through which we are now passing has been brought to our shores by our rulers. It is they who completely changed without our consent and sometimes against our wishes, the whole structure of our social life by introducing revolutionary economic changes in the country. We never asked for them, we never desired them; but primarily in their own interests and for their own benefit they introduced them. Along with these economic changes, they have partially, if not completely, changed our outlook on life by their system of education, by their newspapers, by their laws and by their courts. Some of these changes we would very much like to undo, but whether we or even they can do so now is at best problematic. Any way, the present political situation is a natural outcome of their own policy and is their handiwork. If then any one is to be blamed for it (I for one do not blame any one), it is they themselves. Many of them would probably like to set the hands of the clock back but it is no longer in their power nor is it in ours to do so. We are following a course which we shall have to keep to, and whether we wish it or not, we are, I repeat, in the thick of a great struggle, the end of which no one can foresee. The better mind of the country is opposed to the use of any kind of violence, whether of language or of deed, in bringing the struggle to a satisfactory close; we are doing our level best sincerely and honestly to achieve our end by peaceful means and with the sincerest desire to keep our connection with the ruling class on a basis of mutual [p. 24] friendship and reciprocal interest. But there are persons among the latter who are bent upon thwarting us, who professedly and openly claim their right to rule us by the sword, and who maintain that they have a right to exploit us by all the means available to them by virtue of their military and intellectual power. We are thus face to face with a great struggle between the forces of democratic change, English and Indian, and reactionary militarism. In order to go through the struggle successfully, we will require all the manliness and strength, all the wisdom and tact and all the determination and strength we are capable of putting forth. Above all what we need most is calmness and coolness of judgment, moderation in language and firmness in action.

[…] He mourns Tilak and names the session's subjects: the Punjab, the Khilafat and the reform rules.

PUNJAB DISORDERS

Taking the Punjab disorders first, since we met last at Amritsar, the Congress Commissioners appointed by the Punjab enquiry Sub-Committee of the All India Congress Committee have issued their report. The Hunter Committee appointed by the Government of India have also finished their labours and published their report, and the Government of India and the British Cabinet have passed their orders on that report. The report of the Hunter Committee is not unanimous. All the Indian members have differed from the majority on matters which in my judgment are “basic”. Similarly, the Government of India also are not unanimous. The only Indian [p. 26] member of the Government of India (at the time) has accepted the conclusions of the minority and differed from the majority. The country has with one voice condemned the majority report as well as the decision of the Government thereupon. We, in this Congress are expected to focus the opinion of the country in the matter and recommend such action as we think ought to be taken for the redress of the wrong that has been done.

To arrive at a proper understanding of the position, one has to look into a whole lot of circumstances which preceded the agitation against the Rowlatt Act and to bear in mind that the person who is principally responsible for the Punjab tragedy, the man whose general policy created the atmosphere which made it possible for a Dyer, a Bosworth Smith, an O'Brien, a Doveton, a Frank Johnson and other smaller fry, to commit the unmentionable outrages of which they were guilty, in the five days immediately preceding the introduction of Martial Law, and all through its continuance in the spring of 1919 in the Punjab, is Sir Michael O'Dwyer. From the very moment he took charge of the Province he set before him an ideal of government which was Prussian in conception, Prussian in aim and Prussian in execution. For six long years he occupied himself in working out his ideals and in carrying out his plans. Every item was carefully thought out, and with equal care entrusted to agents who were most fitted and willing to achieve the end desired by the Head of the Government. If ever there intervened an obstacle or a hindrance it was removed without the least pang of conscience, and without the slightest consideration of its morality or even legality, so much so that even the European members of the Indian Civil Service who refused to endorse his opinions or to carry out his mandate had to retire into the background.

[…] He describes the Punjab as a military province and O'Dwyer's return as Lieutenant-Governor.

(i) I charge him with having deliberately intensified the policy of ‘divide and rule’ by keeping apart the Mahomedans from the Hindus and both from the Sikhs.

(ii) I charge him with having created fresh political divisions between the people of the Province by drawing purely artificial and mischievous distinctions between martial and educated classes and between the rural and urban interests and creating unhealthy rivalry between them.

(iii) I charge him with having made illegal use of the process of law and of his authority for recruitment purposes, and for getting contributions for the war loan and other war funds.

(iv) I charge him with having condoned and in a way encouraged the most brutal and diabolic deeds of those who were his tools in recruiting and war loan campaigns and with having failed to check bribery and corruption among the subordinate police and magistracy.

(v) I charge him with having debased and misused the forms and processes of law for the purpose of crushing those who would not bend their knees to him and who showed the slightest independence of spirit and a desire for political advancement.

(vi) I charge him with having deliberately deceived the Government of India as to the necessity of Martial Law, and as to the necessity of trying cases of ordinary sedition under the process of that law. He was guilty of a clear falsehood at this stage when he suggested to the Government of India that the General Officer Commanding in the Punjab agreed with his views.

(vii) I charge him with having deliberately manipulated the continuance of Martial Law for vindictive and punitive purposes when there was no rebellion and there was no likelihood of a recrudescence of disturbances in that Province.

[p. 29] (viii) I charge him with having been instrumental, by express or tacit consent and by encouragement, by word and deed, in the promulgation of barbarous orders and the infliction of barbarous punishments and humiliations on the people of the Punjab.

(ix) I charge him at least with being an accessory after the event of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. By his unqualified approval of the Jallianwala massacre he made himself responsible for all the outrages committed by the Martial Law administrators in pursuance of his policy.

(x) I charge him with having connived at perfectly illegal exactions from the people of the Punjab in the shape of punitive fines and penalties.

(xi) I charge him with culpable neglect of duty in not going to Amritsar, first on the 11th (April 1919) after the deplorable events of the 10th, and then on the 14th after the massacre at the Jallianwala Bagh.

(xii) I charge him, lastly, with having extorted addresses from the people of the Punjab, on the eve of his departure by illegal and mean threats, one of them having been altered in a material particular when in the custody of his minions, and having made a dishonest use of them in his defence in England.

These are serious charges, and I bring them with all the weight of the office to which you have raised me with common consent of the country. I challenge an enquiry and I declare before God and man that my Province and my people will not be satisfied until such an enquiry has been made.

[…] He recounts martial law cruelties and the officials' defiance, and calls for O'Dwyer's prosecution.

The Punjab tragedy was not a provincial affair, but a national one. Our manhood, our self-respect, our national dignity, nay, our very existence as a nation, depends on our having the principles and practices of Sir Michael O'Dwyer condemned, and once for all abrogated. We owe it to ourselves, to our women, to our children and also to those unborn, to fight it out and not let the matter drop without obtaining full and unqualified redress, and without obtaining effective guarantees that it will not be possible for any one, however high his position in the Government of the country, to [p. 33] enact such like tragedies again. It is our duty also to repudiate as emphatically as we can the fundamentally erroneous, I was going to say, vicious and Prussian conception, which found frequent expression in Sir Michael O'Dwyer's speeches, that the security of life and property is the primary duty of Government. The security of life and property is only a means to an end. What is the end? The uplifting of the human race and its progress towards the fullness of freedom, which means towards divinity. “Peace is a good thing, but life is still better”, says Rabindranath Tagore in one of his essays on Nationalism.

If the British rulers of India propose to give us mere security of life and property by denying us honour and liberty we must refuse to have them. There is no life without freedom and there is no freedom without “Swarajya” or self-government.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe I give expression to your sentiments when I say to our rulers, that although the British Government is mighty enough to crush all our efforts by their military power, any success they achieved by military efforts would be a very expensive one. The British Raj is no longer synonymous with justice and fair-play in the mind of the average citizen and the more it is dragged into the mire by men like Sir Michael O'Dwyer, the more it will lose in what has hitherto constituted its boast.

[…] He lists Punjab demands, backs the Muslim Khilafat case, and opposes British expansion in western Asia.

I do not believe there are any Indian Muslims who want Muslim sovereignty in India, but if there be any such we should not be afraid of them. If it came to it, we know how to defend our liberties with or without British aid. How long are we going to be afraid of shadows and be deceived by imaginary fears set before us as a justification of despotic rule? But all this is on the assumption that there is going to be a fight. I for one do not believe that there is any likelihood of one. The Muslims of India do not want to turn out the British; even if they wanted it they could not do so. What they need and ask for is our moral and constitutional support in the present crisis regarding the Khilafat, and we should have no hesitation in giving it to them unreservedly.

I think it is a perfectly legitimate and constitutional demand that the Indian troops should no more be used anywhere outside India. They were taken out to defend the Empire when the Empire was in danger. The war which threatened the whole Empire is over and the troops sent by the Dominions have returned to their homes. So should ours. The Indian army exists to defend the Indian Empire and not for an aggressive Imperial policy of extension and expansion.

As to how far the Hindus should go with their Muslim countrymen in the latter's campaign of non-co-operation is a question which it is for you to discuss and decide. All that I can say at this stage is that we should go as far as we can, consistently with our [p. 43] duty to the country, even if we have to suffer. The Hindu-Muslim unity betokens the dawn of a new day in the history of India and it will be extremely foolish and short-sighted to throw this chance which only comes once perhaps in a century on the bidding of those who worship at the shrine of Dyerism.

The prospect of Hindu-Muslim unity has already brightened the horizon and outlook of many an Indian who had taken to despair. It has cheered many a dying patriot at Amritsar and other places.

[…] He faults the reform rules and introduces Gandhi's non-co-operation proposal, which he will not judge.

In my humble judgment, the President of the Indian National Congress is the mouth-piece of the country only on questions on which the country is unanimous or practically unanimous. Acting on this principle, the moment I decided to accept the honour to which I was called by the vote of the All-India Congress Committee, I made up my mind to follow this course. Since then I have devoted much thought to it but I have not seen any reason to change my opinion. I hope and trust that my decision will meet with your approval. I have my personal opinion on the questions involved in the programme of Non-co-operation but during the session of the Congress I will conduct the proceedings without taking sides.

This, however, does not prevent me from making some general observations on the subject. Before we consider Non-co-operation let us start with co-operation. Co-operation of the people with the Government is based on one of the two assumptions, either that the Government represents them, or that the Government is there to [p. 49] protect their interests. Now in India the first of these two assumptions cannot hold good. The second is unhappily in the course of being shattered to pieces, if not already gone. Co-operation with Government, again, is of two kinds ; one enforceable by law and, therefore, compulsory, for example the payment of taxes, or serving the army under conscription ; the other is voluntary; for example accepting Government service or joining the Councils and so. In the case of the former, every refusal is punishable. As for the latter, there again you have to distinguish between co-operation which is obviously for the country's benefit and that which is not so. Co-operation determined solely or mainly by economic considerations can only be refused, if we can find economic alternatives. Co-operation inspired by the considerations of honour and dignity can be easily refused if the mentality of the people regarding honour and dignity can be changed. Last, but not the least, in the same class you may consider co-operation which gives you opportunities of serving your country by attacking the citadels of power and privilege from the inside.

Co-operation or refusal of it, then, must be judged by (a) its obligatory or voluntary nature (b) by its economic consequences, (c) by its inherent morality and (d) by its utility as a weapon of attack or defence.

Co-operation which is immoral or which makes you a tool of a foreign bureaucracy or which leaves you no option but to give effect to their orders, stands on an entirely different footing from one which is obviously for the benefit of the country. Similarly co-operation, which is inspired by economic necessity stands on a different footing from the one which is solely or mainly based on considerations of honour and dignity. Then again you must consider if your refusal of co-operation proceeds from the desire to make an immediate effective impression on the Government or from the motive of habituating the people to take their destiny in their own hands.

These, then, are the issues involved in the great question of Non-co-operation.

[…] He urges delegates to weigh the interests of the politically awakened masses.

THE MASSES

The general public, including the masses, are in no mood to [p. 51] be trifled with either by the Government or by yourselves. They have waited sufficiently long, and they want immediate relief from economic want and from political bondage. They may not understand complicated questions of Finance, Currency, Military organisation, or the like. They may not be able to express opinions on abstract theories of State, but they do know that the country at present is not being governed in their interests. They are quite aware of the supercilious claims that are being put forward by British statesmen of all kinds from the O'Dwyers, Sydenhams and Sumners of the Tory school to the Mestons, MacDonnels and Montagus of the democratic wing, that the British can and do look after the interests of the masses of this country even better than their educated countrymen. They know that when the question arises whether vote should be given to “the man on the soil, the man behind the plough, and the man whose life is a question between a crop and a crop” it is the British statesman who stands between them and their right. They know also that when the question arises of how best to spend the revenue raised from them, the people whose interests get precedence over theirs, are the British Civilian, the British Army man, the British manufacturer, the British banker and the British trader. They have seen through the newspapers how lavishly and generously the British Secretary of State has been solicitous of conciliating the British and the allied highly paid Indian servants of the Crown by giving them large increments in the princely salaries which they are already enjoying. While the British Government readily recognises that the man drawing from Rs. 500 to Rs. 3,000 or 4,000 a month is hard hit by the increase in the cost of living, they shut their eyes to the fact that the said increase has cut the very ground from under the feet of ordinary wage-earner, the small agriculturist and the low-paid clerk. Last, but not the least, they have seen that, however tyrannical and oppressive the conduct of a British or Indian officer may be, the greatest punishment that can be meted out to him is to be compulsorily retired on a pension, a punishment which really falls on the tax-payer.

[…] He discusses leading the masses and warns that no democracy rules subject peoples justly.

Have as many friends as you can have, among Englishmen and others, but have faith in yourselves alone.

It is much better to go rather slowly than deluded by promises held out to us by people who are not in a position to fulfil those promises, or who do not mean what they say or who promise in diplomatic language. Our progress depends more than anything else upon the volume and vigour of our own public opinion in this country. It will be wise to have this supplemented by the moral support of the great nations of the world, since by virtue of being a member of the League of Nations, we can now legitimately appeal to them for such moral support.

Our success will be determined by the extent of our earnestness, the spirit of self-sacrifice in the leaders, the spirit of self-denial in the rank and file, the power to lead righteously and to be led by righteous men. The time has come when we must decide between the freedom of body and soul and the life of convenience and comparative ease which is allowed to a few of us under the present system. If we decide former we must be prepared for the consequences. But if we choose the latter we must not cry if we do not get the moon. That is the real issue before you and I know I can leave this issue with confidence in your hands.