India for Indians / Enlarged Edition

by Chitta Ranjan Das

GOVERNMENT ENCOURAGEMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY—MR. SWAN'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

With regard to expenditure on commerce and industry, well, you may say very little, practically nothing is spent. I will simply quote to you the observations of a member of the Indian Civil Service, Mr. J. Swan, who has written a report on the industrial condition of Bengal.

"While the industrial development of the province must depend on private enterprise I think the encouragement of Government might take a more active form than it has hitherto done."

Encouragement of the Government might take a more active form! Well, you cannot expect a member of the Civil Service to write more than that. Then again:—

"Adequate capital is particularly necessary in case of industries run by Indian capital and under Indian management owing to the reluctance of banks and of firms to give them credit."

THE REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT

This is what Mr. Swan writes. You may gather therefore that very little is done for industry and commerce. Now that is the position. This state of things went on for years. We were sleeping. At the end of every year we used to hold a meeting of the Congress and beyond that we had no kind of activity. But from the year 1905, there was a great activity in this country which we called the Swadeshi movement. And we find from that time the Government indulged in a series of repressive measures and I believe those repressive measures in their turn gave rise to a party in Bengal, who are described by the Government as anarchists but who are, I venture to think, not anarchists at all—they are revolutionaries. I do not for a moment suggest that the methods which they employ are good or ought to be encouraged but they are not anarchists. It is not that they want to do away with all Government—what they want to do is to change the system of government (hear, hear). So far as I have been able to judge the object of these so called anarchists is not different from the object of the Congress or the Moslem League. The only difference lies in the method which they pursue. They pursue methods which are subversive of law and order whereas the Congress-League adopts methods which are legal. This is the only difference. The methods they pursue are deserving of severe condemnation but I think it is a great injustice to call them anarchists. Be that as it may—I say that after these repressive measures, one after another, in rapid succession—we have in our midst a revolutionary party in Bengal.

Now, it has been often said that we are not fit for self-government because of the existence of this revolutionary party. My answer is: I do not deny that there is a revolutionary party. I admit it and I say that no government which is not a national government will ever be able to put a stop to this revolutionary movement. What do these people want? They want freedom. They want to change the system of government. I told you just now that their object is the same as that of the Congress and the Moslem League. I go further and I say that their object—not their methods—is now recognised as legitimate by the British Cabinet. In August last year, the British Cabinet declared that some kind of responsible government should be introduced into this country. What does that mean? It means that the system of government which obtains now, which is bureaucratic, should be changed or otherwise it is an admission on the part of our masters—after all it is the British Cabinet who are our masters and not the Bureaucracy here—it is an admission on the part of our masters that a change of government, of the bureaucratic system of government is necessary for the welfare of India. I say the object of the so-called anarchists is not only the same as that of the Congress and the League but it is an object which is recognised and sanctioned by the highest authority in England. Therefore, gentlemen, I say, as I have said elsewhere, that the only way you can put a stop to this revolutionary movement is by recognising that simple fact that the people of this country—they are hungry for Freedom—should be given what they want and I say the moment you give freedom to the people, there will be an end of this revolutionary movement (hear, hear). It has been pointed out over and over again, but the Bureaucracy will not listen. Gentlemen, that is the position of affairs to-day. Our agriculture neglected, our education neglected, sanitation neglected, industry and commerce not seriously considered and along with that we have got a revolutionary movement in this country. This is the present situation and it is upon that that a memorable declaration was made by the British Cabinet in August last year. Now, gentlemen, what have we to say to that? I desire to place before you clearly what I mean: Your declaration goes one way and your action goes another way. That is the real grievance of the people of this country. Tell us, if you want, 'you are not fit for self-government, we will not give you self-government.' I can understand that position. I respect plain speaking. I am fond of plain speaking. Let the bureaucracy say in clear terms 'we cannot afford to give you responsible government. We want to have this government as bureaucratic as ever.' 'You can get a little change here and there, political lolipops with which you can amuse yourselves. But we will not give you responsible government'—let them so declare, if they like, and we will then drop this political agitation. Our difficulty is this: We believe in the words of the Declaration and in that belief we have been devising schemes, holding meetings to consider schemes of self-government and to consider what would be the best form of self-government, in this country and to help the Government with our suggestions so that the British Parliament may consider this.

HOW GOVERNMENT HAS TREATED HOME RULERS' PROPOSAL