Vol. 8 · pages 306–310

281PAKISTAN : NATIONAL FRUSTRATION “The speaker emphatically declared that he would not tolerate any foreigner. He wanted an Indian Commander-in-Chief.” The question of Independence was again raised at the Congress session held in March 1923 at Coconada but with no success. In 1924 Mr. Gandhi presiding over the Congress session held in Belgaum said:— “In my opinion, if the British Government mean what they say and honestly help us to equality, it would be a greater triumph than a complete severance of the British connection. I would, therefore, strive for Swaraj within the Empire but would not hesitate to sever all connection if it became a necessity through Britain’s own fault. I would thus throw the burden of separation on the British people.” In 1925 Mr. C. R. Das again took up the theme. In his address to the Bengal Provincial Conference held in May of that year he, with the deliberate object of giving a deadly blow to the idea of independence, took particular pains to show the inferiority of the idea of Independence as compared with that of Dominion Status:— “...... Independence, to my mind, is a narrowed ideal than that of Swaraj. It implies, it is ture, the negative of the dependence ; but by itself it gives us no positive ideal. I do not for a moment suggest that independence is not consistent with Swaraj. But what is necessary is not mere independence but the establishment of Swaraj. India may be independent tomorrow in the sense that the British people may leave us to our destiny but that will not necessarily give us what I understand by Swaraj. As I pointed out in my Presidential address at Gaya, India presents an interesting but a complicated problem of consolidating the many apparently conflicting elements which go to make up the Indian people. This work of consolidation is a long process, may even be a weary process; but without this no Swaraj is possible........ “ Independence, in the second place, does not give you that idea of order which is the essence of Swaraj. The work of consolidation which I have mentioned means the establishment of that order. But let it be clearly understood that what is sought to be established must be consistent with the genius, the temperament and the traditions of the Indian people. To my mind, Swaraj implies, firstly, that we must have the freedom of working out the consolidation of the diverse elements of the Indian people ; Secondly, we must proceed with this work on National lines, not going back two thousand years ago, but going forward in the light and in the spirit of our national genius and temperament........ “Thirdly, in the work before us, we must not be obstructed by any foreign power. What then we have to fix upon in the matter of ideal is

282 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES what I call Swaraj and not mere independence which may be the negation of Swaraj. When we are asked as to what is our national ideal of freedom, the only answer which is possible to give is Swaraj. I do not like either Home Rule or Self-Government. Possibly they come within what I have described as Swaraj. But my culture somehow or other is antagonistic to the word ‘rule’—be it Home Rule or Foreign Rule.” * * * * * “Then comes the question as to whether this ideal is to be realised within the Empire or outside ? The answer which the Congress has always given is ‘within the Empire if the Empire will recognise our right’ and ‘outside the Empire, if it does not’. We must have opportunity to live our life,—opportunity for selfrealization, self-development, and self-fulfilment. The question is of living our life. If the Empire furnishes sufficient scope for the growth and development of our national life the Empire idea is to be preferred. If, on the contrary, the Empire like the Car of Jagannath crushes our life in the sweep of its imperialistic march, there will be justification for the idea of the establishment of Swaraj outside the Empire. “Indeed, the Empire idea gives us a vivid sense of many advantages. Dominion Status is in no sense servitude. It is essentially an alliance by consent of those who form part of the Empire for material advantages in the real spirit of co-operation. Free alliance necessarily carries with it the right of separation. Before the War it was generally believed that it is only as a great confederation that the Empire or its component parts can live. It is realised that under modern conditions no nation can live in isolation and the Dominion Status, while it affords complete protection to each constituent composing the great Commonwealth of Nations called the British Empire, secures to each the right to realise itself, develop itself and fulfil itself and therefore it expresses and implies all the elements of Swaraj which I have mentioned. “ To me the idea is specially attractive because of its deep spiritual significance. I believe in world peace, in the ultimate federation of the world ; and I think that the great Commonwealth of Nations called the British Empire—a federation of diverse races, each with its distinct life, distinct civilization, its distinct mental outlook—if properly led with statesmen at the helm is bound to make lasting contribution to the great problem that awaits the statesmen, the problem of knitting the world into, the greatest federation the mind can conceive—the federation of the human race. But if only properly led with statesmen at the helm ;—for the development of the idea involves apparent sacrifice on the part of the constituent nations and it certainly involves the giving up for good the Empire idea with its ugly attribute of domination. I think it is for the good of India, for the good of the world that India should strive for freedom within the Commonwealth and so serve the cause of humanity.”

283PAKISTAN : NATIONAL FRUSTRATION Mr. Das not only insisted that Dominion Status was better than Independence but went further and got the Conference to pass the following resolution on the goal of India’s political evolution :— “1. This Conference declares that the National ideal of Swaraj involves the right of the Indian Nation to, live its own life, to have the opportunity of self-realization, self-development and self-fulfilment and the liberty to work for the consolidation of the diverse elements which go to make up the Indian Nation unimpeded and unobstructed by any outside domination. “2. That if the British Empire recognises such right and does not obstruct the realisation of Swaraj and is prepared to give such opportunity and undertakes to make the necessary sacrifices to make such rights effective, this Conference calls upon the Indian Nation to realise its Swaraj within the British Commonwealth” It may be noted that Mr. Gandhi was present throughout the session. But there was no word of dissent coming from him. On the contrary, he approved of the stand taken by Mr. Das. With these facts, who can doubt that the Hindus are for Dominion Status and the Muslims are for Independence ? But if there be any doubt still remaining, the repercussions in Muslim quarters over the Nehru Committee’s Report in 1928 must dissolve it completely. The Nehru Committee appointed by the Congress to frame a constitution for India accepted Dominion Status as the basis for India’s constitution and rejected independence. It is instructive to note the attitude adopted by the Congress and the Muslim political organizations in the country towards the Nehru Report. The Congress in its session held at Calcutta in 1928 passed a resolution moved by Mr. Gandhi which was in the following terms:— “This Congress, having considered the constitution recommended by the All-Parties Committee Report, welcomes it as a great contribution towards the solution of India’s political and communal problems, and congratulates the Committee on the virtual unanimity of its recommendations and, whilst adhering to the resolution relating to complete independence passed at the Madras Congress approves of the constitution drawn up by the Committee as a great step in political advance, especially as it represents the largest measure of agreement attained among the important parties in the country. “ Subject to the exigencies of the political situation this Congress will adopt the constitution in its entirety if it is accepted by the British

284 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Parliament on or before December 31,1929, but in the event of its non-acceptance by that date or its earlier rejection, Congress will organise a non-violent non-co-operation by advising the country to refuse taxation or in such other manner as may be decided upon. Consistently with the above, nothing in this resolution shall interfere with the carrying on, in the name of the Congress, of the propaganda for complete independence.” This shows that Hindu opinion is not in favour of Independence but in favour of Dominion Status. Some will take exception to this statement. It may be asked what about the Congress resolution of 1927 ? It is true that the Congress in its Madras session held, in 1927 did pass the following resolution moved by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru:— “This Congress declares the goal of the Indian people to be complete National Independence”. But there is enough evidence to support the contention that this resolution did not and does not speak the real mind of the Hindus in the Congress. The resolution came as a surprise. There was no indication of it in the speech of Dr. Ansari* who presided over the 1927 session. The Chairman† of the Reception Committee only referred to it in passing, not as an urgent but a contingent line of action. There was no forethought about the resolution. It was the result of a coup and the coup was successful because of three factors. In the first place, there was then a section in the Congress which was opposed to the domination of Pandit Motilal Nehru and Mr. Gandhi, particularly the former. This group was led by Mr. Srinivas Iyengar who was the political rival of Pandit Motilal. * This is all that Dr. Ansari said about the subject in his speech : “Whatever be the final form of the constitution, one thing may be said with some degree of certainty, that it will have to be on federal lines providing for a United States of India with existing Indian States as autonomous units of the Federation taking their proper share in the defence of the country, in the regulation of the nation’s foreign affairs and other joint and common interests”.— The Indian Quarterly Register, 1927, Vol. II, p. 372. † Mr. Muthuranga Mudaliar said : “We ought to make it known that if Parliament continues in its present insolent mood, we must definitely start on an intensive propaganda for the severance of India from the Empire. Whenever the time may come for the effective assertion of Indian nationalism, Indian aspiration will then be towards free nationhood, untrammelled even by the nominal suzerainty of the King of England. It behoves English statesmanship to take careful note of this fact. Let them not drive us to despair.”—Ibid., p. 356.

285PAKISTAN : NATIONAL FRUSTRATION They were searching for a plan which would destroy the power and prestige of Pandit Motilal and Mr. Gandhi. They knew that the only way to win people to their side was to take a more extreme position and to show that their rivals were really moderates, and as moderation was deemed by Congressmen to be a sin, they felt that this plan was sure to succeed. They made the goal of India the battle-ground, and knowing that Pandit Motilal and Gandhi were for Dminion Status, put forth the goal of Independence. In the second place, there was a section in the Congress which was led by Mr. Vithalbhai Patel. This section was in touch with the Irish Sinn Fein party and was canvassing its help in the cause of India. The Irish Sinn Fein party was not willing to render any help unless the Indians declared that their goal was Independence. This section was anxious to change the goal from Dominion Status to Independence in order to secure Irish help. To these two factors was added a third namely, the speech made by Lord Birkenhead, the then Secretary of State for India, on the occasion of the appointment of the Simon Commission when he taunted the Indians on their incapacity to produce a constitution. The speech was regarded as a great insult by Indian politicians. It is the combination of these three factors which was responsible for the passing of this resolution. Indeed, the resolution was passed more from the motive* of giving a fitting reply to Lord Birkenhead than from the motive of defining the political goal of the country and if Mr. Gandhi and Pandit Motilal Nehru kept quiet it was largely because the storm created by the intemperate language of Lord Birkenhead against Indians was so great that they thought it wise to bow to it rather than engage upon the task of sweeping it off which they would have otherwise easily done. That this resolution did not speak the real mind of the Hindus in the Congress is beyond doubt. Otherwise, it is not possible to explain how the Nehru Committee could have flouted the Madras resolution of 1927 by adopting Dominion Status as the basis of the constitutional structure framed by it. Nor is it possible to explain how the Congress adopted Dominion Status in 1928 if it *Mr. Sambamurti in seconding the resolution said : “The resolution is the only reply to the arrogant challenge thrown by Lord Birkenhead”.—The Indian Quarterly Register, 1927, Vol. II, p. 381.