India -- Description and travel; India -- Politics and government -- 1765-1947
So, on that note of deep and perhaps irreconcilable divergence,
the twenty-third Indian National Congress ended. Many delegates
remained in Surat for a day or two, taking part in conferences upon
child-marriage, widow-remarriage, the education of women, Indian
industries, the drink problem, the revelations of the Divine Will,
and other questions of permanent interest for Indian life. But the
Congress was over. The work of the old Congress as it had existed
for all those years was rolled up and done. Re-union of Moderate
and Extremist in some form might still be possible; for a militant
party, a nationalist party, an Opposition is never long divided,
and oppression is a fine reconciler. But breach or no breach, all
felt the Congress would never be the same again. In the twinkling
of a shoe it had been changed, and a new spirit, a different and
difficult spirit, had indeed arisen in the country.
As I returned with the leaders of the Congress movement in the train,
each station rang with shouts of “Down with Rash Behari!” “Down with
Gokhale!” “Down with Surendra Nath!” Not a cheer, not a single cry of
“Jai!” That was on a Sunday, and on the Wednesday before no cheering,
no garlands had seemed enough. It had been roses, roses all the way.
[Illustration: THE SACRED RIVER.
[_Face p. 262._
]
FOOTNOTES:
[50] Towards the conclusion of his speech came the following
characteristic sentences: “I oppose this Bill because it violates all
the traditions which have up to this time guided the Government. I
oppose this Bill because I wish to see the English Rule broadbased
on the people’s will, and not resting merely on the sword, whether
Indian or British. And, lastly, I oppose this Bill because it will
kill all political life in this country.... One word more. It is
unfortunate that the 1st of November should have been fixed for this
meeting. That day has always been associated in our minds with the
gracious Proclamation of Queen Victoria. It will now be associated
with the loss of one of our most cherished rights.”
[51] See Mr. Gokhale’s letters on the Breach in the Congress, the
_Bengalee_, January 13 and 14, 1908.
[52] The main part of the address was a sorrowful indictment of
Mr. Morley’s government during the year, an answer to the Arbroath
speech, and a criticism of the professed Simla reforms. It then
passed to the situation between the two parties in India, and
concluded with a strong repudiation of the Extremist position, and a
warning to Extremists “not to be beguiled by phantoms, nor to expect
they could end the British rule by boycotting the administration,”
whereas their only chance lay in co-operation with the Government in
every measure likely to hasten their political emancipation. At the
end of the copy which Dr. Ghose gave me, and which he intended to
read to the Congress, was a manuscript note expressing deep regret
at the murderous attempt upon Mr. Allen in Eastern Bengal, and the
following peroration, also in manuscript:—
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account