Gandhi and Anarchy

by Sir C. Sankaran Nair

By M. R. Jayakar

[We take the following extracts from the Presidential address of Mr. M. R. Jayakar at the Third Thana District Conference. Mr. Jayakar is a well-known Non-Co-operator who believes in the "principles and policy" of the movement and who joined the movement because he realised that "Our quarrel with the bureaucracy was far more substantial than our differences with the Congress Programme.">[

The Failure of the Programme

The principles and the policy of the movement (N.C.O.) are substantially sound and have achieved unexpected success. But, with every month that has passed, the need has been felt in many quarters of revising and adjusting the programme in the light of previous experience. When dispassionately judged by such experience it will be found that some details of the congress programme have not achieved the desired success; on the contrary, they have formed weak links in the main. When these items were undertaken they evoked a large volume of adverse criticism in the ranks of Congress workers. Many of them have, no doubt, subordinated their differences, out of loyalty to the main cause, and quite a large number, out of their esteem and regard for the personality of the selfless and saintly promoter of the movement. But, notwithstanding this admirable display of loyalty among Congress men, the fact remains and has to be reckoned with, that many items have proved unsuccessful and perhaps act, in consequence as a clog on the movement. The soreness, which some of these details have caused, still remains and is operating to undivide some from others and makes them lukewarm or unwilling to throw their whole heart into this movement. If these co-workers of ours could be placated by a revision of the Congress programme, so that most of the earnest-minded workers for cause could substantially agree to its adoption, it would be a great advantage. And herein perhaps, lay the chief merit of the amendment moved by Mr. B. C. Pal, which was rejected by the majority at Calcutta. Taken at its highest, our success has not gone much beyond what that amendment would have made possible. It would have had the further advantage of retaining within our ranks many of our former associates, who are, at present, either lukewarm or hostile.

Experiment in youthful sacrifice

When once the necessity is recognized of revising the programme in the light of these comments, which are being made throughout the country, it will not be difficult to find out in what directions the programme has not achieved the expected success and the reasons for the same. For instance, the boycott of schools and colleges have not succeeded and even persons, of known and undoubted loyalty to the cause, complain that the action of Congress workers has caused more harm than good. They concentrated too much on the disruption of existing institutions and less on the creation and maintenance of new ones on "national" lines. They forgot that a student cannot be left idle in the street and that, if the Congress must call him out, it can only be after it has provided for him a good substitute. In Bombay we let pass the psychological moment when we could have founded and reared up an excellent college with various branches. Public enthusiasm was ripe for it in the early part of the year, but we let it evaporate in declamation and emotional exaltation. Some went so far as to suggest that it was no part of the Congress programme to start national Colleges though the terms of the Congress Resolution specially provided for it. 50000 boys are out in idleness, says Sir Ashutosh Mukherji, some may glorify in this catastrophe, but there are many who regard this disruptive event with sad dismay. We have experimented too much in youthful sacrifice. Our youth have reciprocated with more love and tenderness than we have shown for their welfare. The few good institutions which Congress workers have created, are suffering from our neglect and apathy and dragging a weary existence. The shadow of a name has, very often been pursued, to the abandonment of the substance, and we now find a large number of boys in the country, who are practically loafing in the streets, with a vague ambition "to do something patriotic".

The Lawyer-Failure

Our ban on lawyers has, likewise, not attained much success. Few lawyers, whose sacrifice of their practice has added strength to the Congress cause, have responded to the call. The prestige of British court in civil Suits between an Indian and Indian has not been destroyed and can not be so easily destroyed; for, ordinarily this variety of legal contests is not much colored with injustice, as political trials are. If lawyers had been called out, because, being a trained class of workers, the country wanted their undivided time and attention at this critical hour, it would have been a different matter, and, perhaps, if the call had been so made many, many more would have responded to it. But it was put the wrong way, and the lawyer was made to appear as if, in pursuing his profession, he was acting sinfully and must atone for it by a complete withdrawal from practice. The result was that, out of sheer self-respect, many really good lawyers have declined to respond to the call. Many could not give up their practice for pecuniary reasons and were too honest to adopt subterfuges calculated to create a semblance of sacrifice. Lawyers have become "pariahs" of our present political life. Some of them had borne the brunt of public agitation for more than two decades; their place is vacant and no class of workers of equal intelligence and keenness has come forward to take it.

A Foul Atmosphere

This part of the Congress programme has created a foul atmosphere of hypocrisy, intolerance, imposture and conceit in the Congress Camp, in which modesty, self-respect, and honesty often time find it hard to hold their place. In our enthusiasm, we forget that many lawyers value their profession for the training it affords in courage, truthfulness, honor and toleration. No other profession trains a young man so well to withstand and expose injustice and to uphold the tradition of truth and honor. Our past political history of thirty-three years is a brilliant record of the services rendered by lawyers to the Congress cause. If a greater sacrifice than before was needed now on their part, a direct call on their self-respect and patriotism on this footing should have been made, but no good has arisen from putting the lawyer under the ban of ridicule and infamy. The call made upon them was singularly harsh. No other class of public workers was required to give up his means of livelihood. The importing merchant supports British prestige as much as, if not more than the lawyer and yet he stalks unabashed in the Congress camp without closing his shop. No ban was put on litigants, without whom the lawyer cannot thrive. I am therefore, surprised that notwithstanding so much hardship, so many lawyers have come out and are to be found in the vanguard of the movement. The few courts of justice, we called into existence have not had enough support and are a mockery.