The Moderates seceded from the Congress on the question of accepting the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. THE HINDU: “The Moderates were faced with the alternative of either a united Congress or the wrecking of the (Reform) scheme and they chose to split the Congress rather than risk the indefinite postponement of reforms. We are not as pessimistic on this question of withdrawal of the scheme as the Moderates. There are occasions on which it is wiser to let go the bird in hand and pin our hopes on those in the bush, but the Hon’ble Mr. (Srinivasa) Sastri betrays surely some deficiency in those generous instincts the lack of which among our politicians he has deplored”.
AUGUST 30, 1918
The great betrayal
THE HYPER-ACTIVE SENSE OF HUMOUR OF THE ANGLO-INDIAN Press affects to find cause for ribald laughter in the attempts which were recently made to effect a compromise between the two wings of Indian nationalists. The extremists were represented as attempting, to use a vulgarism, to put salt on the tail of men whom they had been hitherto abusing in season and out, in order to bring about a fictitious unity of front. We must confess we have not much patience with the argument, now used so freely both by the Anglo-Indian Press and by certain Moderates, that any unity which may be attained by a compromise must necessarily be superficial. Since both parties are presumably sincere in their professions of patriotism there is no essential conflict of interests involved, nothing in fact beyond a question of method and we are at a loss to see what fundamental difference there could possibly be between the two which would give the lie to any compromise between them. As we have before pointed out, on the question at issue before the Special Congress there is no unbridgeable gulf between the parties which a little give and take cannot manage to span and we are thus driven reluctantly to the conclusion that the secession of the Moderates or a certain section of them must find causes, other than the lofty ones professed. Whatsoever interests the Moderates may be safeguarding by thus wantonly splitting up the Congress at a time of national crisis, they are certainly not those of the country. We are aware that the Moderates base their action upon the argument that the scheme of reform is endangered, but no sane person who has compared the criticisms of the scheme from the Moderate side with those from the extremist could tolerate such a position for a moment. Between uncritical intransigence and indiscriminate eulogy there is a vast volume of sober opinion which concentrates attention on the defects of the scheme, seeking not to destroy but to improve. In this category are included the vast bulk of so-called Moderates and extremists and yet when it comes to the question of putting coherent shape to this volume of criticism and giving it the stamp of authoritative endorsement from the only body which is recognised as national, the Moderates have hung back, thus seeking to stultify the authority of the Congress to speak on behalf of a united India. It is a psychology hard to understand from the standpoint of patriotism, or indeed of any other except that of wounded vanity. According to the Hon’ble Mr. Sastri himself, one of the ablest critics of the scheme, it is all a question of strategy. The Moderates were faced with the alternative of either a united Congress or the wrecking of the scheme and they chose to split the Congress indefinite postponement of reforms. We are not as pessimistic on this question of withdrawal of the scheme as the Moderates. There are occasions on which it is wiser to let go the bird in hand and pin our hopes on those in the bush, but the Hon’ble Mr. Sastri betrays surely some deficiency in those generous instincts the lack of which among our politicians, he has so often deplored, in thus too easily taking it for granted that the solemn pledge of the British people could or would be left unredeemed even if the present scheme were withdrawn. Such a suspicious attitude surely befits better the rank extremist than one who is unhesitatingly prepared to pledge our future on the good faith and goodwill of the bureaucracy. We are prepared to accept Mr. Sastri’s explanation of his own personal inclination to attend the Congress though in this connection the message from him, quoted in the “Bengalee” and strongly urging abstention from the Congress, requires some elucidation. When however, Mr. Sastri goes on to say that he considers himself bound by a sense of party discipline and by the decision of the Council of the Servants of India Society we are inclined to wonder if Mr. Sastri has realised the responsibilities as well as he does the privileges of the position he occupies as the Madras representative on the Imperial Council and as one of the authors – and by all accounts not the least considerable of the Congress-League scheme. We have no desire to labour this point but we must point out that loyalty to country ought in reason to come first and to self, friends, society or party afterwards. We have seen that the plea of strategy or of party discipline cannot hold water. There remains only, barring strictly personal considerations, the plea urged in Bengal of possible personal ill-treatment. We are glad that, having a sense of humour, Mr. Sastri has definitely repudiated this plea but that serves only to render his attitude all the more inexplicable. The commendation of The Times and of the Anglo-Indian press is of itself sufficient condemnation of the seceders, but of the incredible folly of voluntarily splitting up our ranks at a time when there are indications of one of those periodical invasions of the rights of citizenship which constitute the history of Indian politics, it is impossible to speak in measured terms.
Reference:
The First 100
A Selection of Editorials, 1878-1978, THE HINDU, VOLUME I