Presidential Address to the Indian National Congress, Karachi

[p. 903] FRIENDS,—Let me commence my brief address with respectful condolences to Shrimati Sarup Rani Nehru, Pandit Jawaharlal, and the other members of the family on the loss they have sustained in Pandit Motilalji's death. I know that their sorrow has been greatly relieved by the knowledge that it is shared by a whole nation. Motilalji's help at this juncture was a necessity which we all and above all Gandhiji felt whilst the delicate negotiations in Delhi were going on. This loss came upon the nation when the tears had hardly dried over the death of Maulana Mahomed Ali. Though unfortunately the late Maulana had differences with us, his services to the country as a great patriot and a brave man who never concealed what he believed, could never be forgotten. I tender my respectful condolences to the Begum Saheba, Maulana Shaukat Ali and the whole family. And in this connection I would couple those nameless heroes who unknown to fame, and never caring for it, laid down their lives in the non-violent struggle during the past twelve months. May their souls rest in peace and may their lives chasten us and spur us to greater sacrifice and greater effort for the cause for which they died!

[LAHORE EXECUTION]

[The execution of young Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru has filled the country with deep resentment. I cannot identify myself with their methods. I have no doubt that political murder is no less reprehensible than any other, but the patriotism, daring and sacrifice of Bhagat Singh and his comrades command my admiration. The heartless and foreign nature of the government was never more strikingly demonstrated than in their carrying out the executions in the teeth of the all but universal demand for the commutation of the death sentence. Let us not, however, be deterred from our purpose in a fit of resentment. This insolent exhibition of their armed power but adds to the heavy indictment against the soulless system and increases our capacity for vindicating our position if we would refuse to be deflected from the straight and narrow path we have chosen. May the souls of the brave patriots rest in peace and may their families find comfort in the fact that the nation is a sharer in their mourning.]

You have called a simple farmer to the highest office to which any Indian can aspire. I am conscious that your choice of me as first servant is not so much for what little I might have done, but it is the recognition of the amazing sacrifice made by Gujarat. Out of your generosity you have singled out Gujarat for the honour. But in truth every province did its utmost during the year of the greatest [p. 904] national awakening that we have known in modern times. And thanks be to God that the awakening was a call to self-purification.

Though there have been aberrations, it is a fact beyond challenge that India has given a singular proof to the world that mass non-violence is no longer the idle dream of a visionary or a mere human longing. It is a solid fact capable of infinite possibilities for a humanity which is groaning, for want of faith, beneath the weight of violence of which it has almost made a fetish. The greatest proof that our movement was non-violent lies in the fact that the peasants falsified the fears of our worst sceptics. They were described as very difficult to organise for non-violent action and it is they who stood the test with a bravery and an endurance that was beyond all expectation. Women and children too contributed their great share in the fight. They responded to the call by instinct and played a part which we are too near the event adequately to measure. And I think it would not be at all wrong to give them the bulk of the credit for preservation of non-violence and the consequent success of the movement. Looked at in the light of non-violence our struggle is a world struggle and it is a matter of great satisfaction that the nations of the earth, especially the United States of America have heartened us by their sympathy.

The recent settlement however renders it unnecessary to dwell at greater length upon this heroic period in the national life. Your Working Committee has entered into the Settlement in anticipation of your approval. You are now invited formally to endorse it. The Committee having accepted it as your accredited representatives, it is not, I take it, open to you to repudiate it; but it is open to you to pass a vote of no-confidence in the present executive and appoint better agents. But whilst it is but meet that I should draw your attention to the constitutional position, I have no doubt whatsoever that you will endorse the settlement which I hold to be perfectly honourable for both the parties. Had we not accepted the settlement we should have put ourselves in the [p. 905] wrong and thereby undone the effect of the sufferings of the past year. Indeed we had always claimed, as Satyagrahis must claim, to be ready and eager for peace. When therefore the way seemed to be open for peace, we took it. In view of the clear demand on the part of the British Indian Delegation at the Round Table Conference for full responsibility, and in view of the British parties having accepted the position and in view of the appeal made to the Congress by the Premier, the Viceroy and many of our distinguished countrymen, the Working Committee thought that if an honourable truce could be arranged and if it was open to the Congress to press without any reservation for what it considered to be the best for the country, the Congress should, if invited, take part in the Conference and attempt to reach an agreed solution of the constitutional issue. If we failed in the attempt and there was no way open but that of suffering, then it was a privilege of which no power on earth could deprive us. Under the constitution clause of the Settlement it is open to us to press for Purna Swaraj, to ask for complete control over our defence forces, foreign affairs, finance, fiscal policy and the like. There would be safeguards or reservations, or as the late Pandit Motilalji called them, adjustments, conceived in our own interest. When power passes from one to the other by agreement there are always safeguards in the interest of the party in need of reparation or help. The continued exploitation of India for close on two centuries renders it necessary for us to seek assistance in several respects from external sources. This we would gladly take from Britain, if she is willing to give. Thus we would need military skill and there is no reason why we may not receive English assistance in this direction. I have taken only one telling illustration out of others that may be suggested. The defence safeguard may therefore be the retention of British officers, or, as some would say, even privates; but we could never let our defence be controlled by the British. We must have the full power to make mistakes. We may gratefully receive British advice; never dictation. The fact is that the British army in India is an army of occupation. Defence [p. 906] is a misnomer. Frankly, the army is for defending British interests and British men and women against any internal uprising. I cannot recall a single instance in which the Indian army was required for the protection of India to fight a foreign power. True, there have been expeditions on the Frontier, wars with Afghanistan. British historians have taught us that they were wars more of aggression rather than of defence. We must not therefore be frightened by the bogey of foreign designs upon India. In my opinion if we need an army, we certainly do not need the octopus we are daily bleeding to support. If the Congress has its way, the army will suffer immediate reduction to its desirable proportion.

Nor can we divide financial control with the British Government. The nation cannot grow to its full height if it has not exclusive control over its finance.

Again we have been taught to think that our civil administration will be inefficient and corrupt if we give up the able assistance of highly paid British civilians. The administrative powers that the Congress has exhibited during recent years and the fact of its having on an ever-increasing scale drawn to its assistance some of the best young men and women either without pay or on a mere pittance should sufficiently dispose of the fear of corruption or inefficiency. It would be too great a strain upon our poor purse to have to pay by way of insurance against corruption a premium out of all proportion to the highest possible estimate of corruption that may ever take place. It will therefore be necessary, if India is to come to her own, to demand a heavy reduction in the Civil Service expenditure and thus a consequent reduction in the emoluments of the Civil Service.

We have claimed that many of the charges laid upon India are wholly unjust. We have never suggested repudiation of a single obligation, but we have asked and must continue to ask for an impartial investigation into the debits against us wherever we cannot agree.

There is no receding from the Lahore resolution of Complete Independence. This independence does not [p. 907] mean, was not intended to mean, a churlish refusal to associate with Britain or any other power. Independence therefore does not exclude the possibility of equal partnership for mutual benefit and dissolvable at the will of either party. If India is to reach her independence through consultation and agreement, it is reasonable to suppose that there is a strong body of opinion in the country to the effect that before a partnership could possibly be conceived there must be a period of complete dissociation. I do not belong to that school. It is, as I think, a sign of weakness and of disbelief in human nature.

Federation is a fascinating idea. But it introduces new embarrassments. Princes will not listen to severance. But if they will come in the true spirit it will be a great gain. Their association must not be to impede the progress of democracy. I hope therefore that they will not take up an uncompromising attitude that may be wholly inconsistent with the spirit of freedom. I wish they would without any pressure give us an earnest of their desire to march abreast of the time-spirit. Surely the fundamental rights of their subjects should be guaranteed as of the rest of the inhabitants of India. All the inhabitants of Federated India should enjoy some common elementary rights. And if there are rights, there must be a common court to give relief from any encroachment upon them. Nor can it be too much to expect that the subjects of the states should be to an extent directly represented on the federal legislature.

As regards Burma, press censorship has rendered it impossible for us to know the true situation there. Whether Burma should be separate from India or should be part of a Free India is for the Burmese alone to decide. But it is our concern, indeed it is the world's concern, to see that all sides are heard. It is well known that there is a unionist party in Burma. It is as much entitled to freedom of opinion as the separatists. If therefore the information given to the Congress that unionist opinion is strangled be true, the injustice must be resisted. The [p. 908] proposition that there should be a referendum of Burmese opinion seems to me to be eminently reasonable.

But before all else comes the question of Hindu-Muslim or rather communal unity. The position of the Congress was defined at Lahore. Let me recite the resolution here :

In view of the lapse of the Nehru Report it is unnecessary to declare the policy of the Congress regarding communal questions, the Congress believing that in an independent India, communal questions can only be solved on strictly national lines. But as the Sikhs in particular and Muslims and other minorities in general had expressed dissatisfaction over the solution of the communal question proposed in the Nehru Report, this Congress assures the Sikhs, Muslims and other minorities that no solution thereof in any future constitution can be acceptable to the Congress, that does not give full satisfaction to the parties concerned.

Therefore the Congress can be no party to any constitution which does not contain a solution of the communal question that is not designed to satisfy the respective parties. As a Hindu I would adopt my predecessor's formula and present the minorities with a Swadeshi fountain-pen and paper and let them write out their demands. And I should endorse them. I know that it is the quickest method. But it requires courage on the part of the Hindus. What we want is a heart unity, not patched up paper-unity that will break under the slightest strain. That unity can only come when the majority takes courage in both the hands and is prepared to change places with the minority. This would be the highest wisdom. Whether the unity is reached that way or any other, it is becoming plainer day after day that it is useless to attend any conference unless that unity is achieved. The Conference can give us an agreement between the British and us, it can perhaps help us to come nearer to the Princes; but it can never enable us to achieve unity. That must be hammered into shape by ourselves. The Congress must leave no stone unturned to realise this much-desired end.

It must be clear to all of us that the Congress can be useful for attaining Purna Swaraj only to the extent that it [p. 909] has gained power. The past twelve months have undoubtedly given it a power which he who runs may see. But it is not enough and can be easily frittered away by hasty action or by pride. He is a spendthrift who lives on his capital. We must therefore add to our power. One way to do so is on our part to fulfil to the letter the conditions of the Settlement. The other is to consolidate our gains. I therefore propose to devote a few lines to this part of our activity.

We have made much headway in the matter of the boycott of foreign cloth. It is a right as well as a duty. Without it, the impoverished millions of India must continue to starve. For if cheap foreign cloth continues to be dumped down in the villages of India, the Charkha cannot flourish. Foreign cloth must therefore be banished from the land. It is dear even if it could be obtained free. The millions who starve do so, not because there is not enough in the land but because they have no work during the off-season. It is therefore want of easy employment in their own villages that leads to starvation. Incessant propaganda is necessary to rid the country of chronic unemployment which has become second nature with our peasantry. The best propaganda is to do sacrificial spinning ourselves and wear Khadi. The All-India Spinners' Association has done much valuable work. But it is for the Congress to create the Spinning and the Khaddar atmosphere. This to my mind is the best and the most effective propaganda of Boycott.

It has been suggested that the argument against foreign cloth applies to indigenous mill cloth. This is true to an extent. But our mills do not produce all the cloth we need. For years to come they may continue to supply the balance that may be required over and above hand-spun cloth. But even our mills may prove a hindrance, if they compete with Khaddar or resort to questionable devices to push their wares. Fortunately many mills are patriotically working in co-operation with the Congress and are beginning to appreciate the virtue of Khaddar in the interest of the toiling millions. But I can certainly say [p. 910] that if our mills unpatriotically hurt Khaddar instead of complimenting it, they must face an opposition somewhat similar to that against foreign cloth.

The foreign cloth merchants will do well to bear the Congress attitude in mind in this regard. Foreign cloth boycott is a permanent thing not conceived as a political weapon but as an economic and social measure of permanent value for the welfare of the masses. These merchants, therefore, if they will look into the future and think of their country, will do well to give up their foreign cloth trade. Everything possible is being done to help them but some very big sacrifice on their part is essential.

English, Japanese and other foreign merchants will, I hope, not misunderstand the Congress attitude. If they will help India, they will deny themselves the Indian trade in foreign cloth. They have other markets and other enterprises.

This brings me to picketing. This has not been and cannot be given up. I give below the relevant clause of the Settlement.

Picketing shall be unaggressive and it shall not involve coercion, intimidation, restraint, hostile demonstration, obstruction to the public, or any offence under the ordinary law; and if and when any of these methods is employed in any place, the practice of picketing in that place will be suspended.

Picketing is a common law right. But you will observe that within the limits prescribed it is not only inoffensive but highly educative. Its function is gentle persuasion, never coercion or violent restraint on liberty. I use the adjective 'violent' advisedly. The restraining force of public opinion there always will be. It is healthy, elevating and conducive to the growth of liberty as distinguished from licence. Non-violent picketing is designed to create public opinion, an atmosphere which should become irresistible. This can best be carried on by women. I hope therefore that they will continue the marvellous work begun by them and earn the eternal gratitude of the nation and, what is more, the blessings of the starving millions.

[p. 911] In this connection let me say a few words regarding boycott of British goods. This idea is almost as old as the Congress. We know that after the advent of Gandhiji on the political platform, boycott of British goods was replaced by that of foreign—not only British—cloth. He interpreted it in terms of economics and social uplift, whereas the boycott of the British goods as such is a political and punitive measure. This was effectively employed during the recent hurricane campaign. Now that there is at least temporary peace, and we seek to reach our goal through consultation and conference, we must withdraw the political weapon. We cannot be sitting at the friendly conference table and outside making designs to hurt British interests. Whilst therefore we must for the time being withdraw British goods' boycott, we must intensify Swadeshi which is the birthright of every nation. Whatever we produce in our country we must encourage to the exclusion of foreign whether British or other. This is the condition of national growth. Thus we must encourage and carry on intensive propaganda on behalf of indigenous insurance companies, banking, shipping and the like. We may not belittle or neglect them on the ground of their inferiority or dearness. Only by wide use and helpful criticism may we make them cheaper and better.

There is much loose talk about equality of treatment. What is equality of treatment between the strong and the weak, between giant and dwarf, between elephant and ant? If Lord Inchcape with his fabulous wealth and resources claimed equal rights with Seth Narotam Morarji of lamented memory, it would be a travesty of equality. It will be time enough to talk of equality of treatment after Narotamdas's successors have made some little approach to Lord Inchcape's resources. Equality of treatment in the case of hopeless unequals ought to mean raising the less favoured upto the level of the most favoured. Thus equality of treatment for suppressed classes on the part of the so-called superior classes means raising the former to the latter's level; the latter sacrificing [p. 912] their substance and stooping to conquer. In relation to the British we have hitherto occupied a position in some respects lower even than the suppressed classes. Protection of Indian industries and enterprise to the exclusion of British or foreign, is a condition of our national existence even under a state of partnership. Protection within even the British Commonwealth is no new-fangled notion. It is in vogue in the Dominions to the extent necessary for their growth.

Just as boycott of foreign cloth is an economic necessity for the sake of the starving millions, boycott of intoxicating drink and drugs is a necessity for the moral welfare of the nation. The idea of total Prohibition was born before its political effect was thought of. The Congress conceived it as a measure of self-purification. Even if the Government earmarked the revenue from this traffic for purely Prohibition purposes, our picketing of these shops would continue, no doubt subject to the same severe restrictions as in the case of foreign cloth. I invite the Government during the transition stage to anticipate the verdict of the national legislature and not merely tolerate picketing of the two things, foreign cloth and drink and drugs, but make, if they will, common cause with the nation. But whether they will or no, we cannot rest still, so long as there is a yard of foreign cloth entering the country or a single liquor shop corrupting our misguided countrymen.

One word regarding salt. The salt raids must stop. Defiance of salt laws for the sake of civil disobedience must stop. But the poor, living in the neighbourhood of salt areas, are free to make and sell salt within that neighbourhood. The Salt Tax is not gone, it is true. In view of the likelihood of the Congress participating in the Conference, we may not press for the immediate repeal of the tax which is bound to come very soon. But the poorest on whose behalf the campaign was undertaken are now virtually free from the tax. I hope that no traders will seek to take an undue advantage of the relaxation.

[p. 913] The foregoing perhaps shows you how uninterested I am in many things that interest the intelligentsia. I am not interested in loaves and fishes, or legislative honours. The peasantry do not understand them, they are little affected by them. I believe that Gandhiji's eleven points mean the substance of Swaraj. That which does not satisfy them is no Swaraj. Whilst I would respect the rights of landlords, Rajas, Maharajas and others to the extent that they do not hurt the sweating millions, my interest lies in helping the downtrodden to rise from their state and be on a level with the tallest in the land. Thank God, the gospel of Truth and Non-Violence has given these an inkling of their dignity and the power they possess. Much still remains to be done. But let us make up our minds that we exist for them, not they for us. Let us shed our petty rivalries and jealousies, religious feuds and let every one realise that the Congress represents and exists for the toiling millions and it will become an irresistible power working not for greed or power but for the sake of common humanity.

There is one part of the constructive programme which I have not dealt with already; that is the all important work of removing untouchability. It is no use tinkering with the problem. The recent heroic struggle on the part of the nation would have been more glorious if Hindus had purged Hinduism of this evil. But heroism or glory apart, no Swaraj would be worth having without this supreme act of self-purification; and even if Swaraj is won whilst this stain continues to blacken Hinduism, it would be as insecure as a Swaraj without a complete boycott of foreign cloth.

In conclusion, I may not forget our brethren overseas. Their lot in South Africa, in East Africa and in the other parts of the world is still hanging in the balance. Deenabandhu Andrews is happily in South Africa helping our countrymen. Pandit Hridaya Nath Kunzru has specialised in the Indian question in East Africa. The only consolation the Congress can give is to assure them of its sympathy.

[p. 914] They know that their lot must automatically improve to the extent that we approach our goal. In your name I would appeal to the Governments concerned to treat with consideration the members of a nation which is bound at a very early date to enter upon her heritage and which means ill to no nation on earth. We ask them to extend to our nationals the same treatment they would have us, when we are free, to extend to theirs. This is surely not asking too much.

I invite you to conduct your proceedings, over which you have asked me to preside, in a manner befitting the grave occasion at which we have met. Differences of opinion are bound to exist; but I trust that every one here will co-operate to make our deliberations dignified and conducive to the attainment of our goal.