The Moderate Manifesto

THE practical exclusion of the educated classes, other than Mahomedans, landholders and titled grandees, from the new Councils and the preference of Mahomedans to Hindus has rung the death-knell of the old Moderate politics in India. If the Moderate Party is to survive, it has to shift its base and alter its tactics. If its leaders ignore the strong dissatisfaction and disillusionment felt by educated Hindus all over India or if they tamely acquiesce in a reform which seems to have been deliberately framed in order to transfer political preponderance from Hindus to Mahomedans and from the representatives of the educated class to the landed aristocracy, they will very soon find themselves leaders without a following. The Moderate Party at present is held together merely by the prestige and personal influence of the small secret Junta of influential men who lead it, not by any settled convictions or intelligent policy. The personalities of Mr. Gokhale and Sir Pherozshah Mehta in Bombay, of Sj. Surendranath Banerji and Sj. Bhupendranath Bose in Bengal, of Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya in the United Provinces, of Mr. Krishnaswamy Aiyar in Madras constitute Moderatism in their respective provinces. What these old and respected leaders decide in their close and secret deliberations is accepted, no longer without cavilling, but still with a somewhat reluctant acquiescence by their party. But the public mind has now been too deeply stirred for the leaders to ignore the opinion of the country. The resignation by Sir Pherozshah Mehta of his Presidentship of the Lahore Convention following so soon after the publication of the Regulations, the speech of Mr. Gokhale at the Deccan Sabha and the manifesto issued by the Calcutta Moderates are the first signs of the embarrassment felt by the heads of the party. There can be no doubt that they have allowed themselves to be tools in the hands of the officials and were not prepared for being thrown overboard as the sole recompense.

The speech of Mr. Gokhale shows the line along which the Bombay Moderate leaders desire to pilot their followers. It is the line chalked out for them by Lord Minto and other Anglo-Indian advisers. A great deal of feeling has been created against Mr. Gokhale throughout the country by his justification of the "stern and relentless" measures employed by the Government against the Nationalist Party and the Boycott movement and by the Bombay Government's use of the new repressive legislation to crush a personal adversary in Mr. Gokhale's interests. The Moderate leader has with a belated adroitness used the disqualification of the Nationalist, Mr. N. C. Kelkar, to rehabilitate himself, if that be possible, by championing the cause of a political opponent. We do not know whether Mahratta sentiment will be shallow enough to be misled by this manoeuvre. The disqualification of Mr. Kelkar is an incident we welcome as a gain to our cause. On the other hand, apart from the empty formula of protest and a formal recognition of the sentiment of the country against the defects of the measure, the speech is merely a repetition of Lord Minto's appeal to give this vicious, injurious and insulting measure a fair chance, — on the very shadowy possibility to which the Moderate leaders still profess to cling, that all this alloy will be changed to pure gold in the next three years. Mr. Gokhale is still the political henchman of Lord Minto and echoes his sentiments with a pathetic fidelity.

The manifesto of the Moderate leaders in Calcutta is of more importance. The Bengal veterans have not yet lost caste by publicly turning against their countrymen and approving Government repression; they still keep some touch with public sentiment and have not yielded body and soul to the rallying call of Lord Morley. Even so fervid an anti-Nationalist as Dr. Rasbehari Ghose, to the great discontent and surprise of the Englishman, has signed the document. The manifesto shows a clear sense of the shortcomings of the measure of reform which was acclaimed with such gratitude by these same able politicians when the skeleton had not been filled in with its present generous padding. It is to be regretted that a false note has been struck by the reference to the modification of one clause and the complaint that the "relief" thus afforded was insignificant and many dis-

Page – 310

tinguished men would still be barred out of the Council. Are the distinguished men of Bengal paupers cringing for personal doles that this kind of language should be used or this kind of argument advanced ? We cannot congratulate the framer of the manifesto either on the form or the matter of this unhappy sentence. The recognition of class and creed as a basis of representation, the exclusion of popular interests in favour of the dignified elements in the community, the illusory nature of the non-official majority, the limitation of the functions of the Councils to criticism without control and the denial of freedom of election are the real gravamen of the charges against Lord Morley's measure, and the barring out of certain distinguished men is a mere incident which can certainly be used in newspaper articles and speeches as an indication of motive, but ought not to have been introduced into a grave document of this nature. The effective representation of the people, the preservation of sound democratic principles of representation in the formation of the electorates and freedom of election are the objects disinterested and patriotic men should hold before them, not the privilege of entry into the Councils for distinguished men.

But while the manifesto contains a full and exhaustive statement of the objections to the Reform, it is silent as the grave with regard to the practical methods which the Moderate leaders propose to adopt in order to bring about real reform. Will they follow the Bombay lead ? Will they strike out a line of their own ? At the close of the manifesto there is a pious expression of indomitable hope characteristic of the Moderate party, the party of obstinate illusions; the signatories, it seems, do not despair of the Government seeing the error of their ways and modifying the regulations so as to restore Lord Morley's original scheme. There is something heroic in this desperate absence of despair. It reminds us of the most heroic passage in Roman history when, after the massacre of Cannae, the beaten general and cause of the disaster returned an almost solitary fugitive to Rome, preferring flight to a soldier's death, and the whole Roman senate came out to meet him and thank him that he had not despaired of his country. What is it that the Moderate leaders hope ? Do they hope that the regulations will be so modified as to admit all

the distinguished men whom they are interested in seeing at their [posts] back in the Councils ? Or do they hope that the fundamental defects we have enumerated will be removed by a sort of spontaneous repentance and confession of original sin on the part of the Government ? If so, what other basis have they for their incurable hopefulness except the faculty of the chameleon for living on unsubstantial air ? The modifications of which they speak are not modifications, but a radical alteration of the whole spirit and details of the measure.

We also do not despair of a wholesome change in the attitude of the Government, but we do not believe in political miracles. There is no progress in politics except by the play of cause and effect, and if we want a particular effect, we must first create the suitable and effective cause. The only cause that can bring about so radical a change in the attitude of the Government is the failure of this misbegotten scheme and the necessity of substituting one better conceived and more liberal. And the only way to bring about the failure and the consequent necessity is to focus the whole opposition of the Hindu interest and the popular interest, with whatever Mahomedan assistance we can get, in a movement of abstention from the present Councils and an active agitation by effective means for the recognition of the great democratic principles that have been ignored and the formation of a new scheme after consultation with the popular leaders. This, it seems to us, is a legitimate sphere of activity for a strong and self-respecting Moderate party. But if they stultify themselves by accepting in any way a measure designed to reduce them to nullity or impotence, they will commit suicide. Their empty protests against the defects of the Bill will be recognised as meaningless, for they will have deprived themselves of their only leverage for remedying the defects. The country has no room any longer for a party of mere sanguine expectancy and helpless dependence on the will of superior power. Moderatism at present is a mass of ill-defined aspirations, ungrounded hopes and helpless methods leading to perpetual and repeated disappointment, increasing weakness and deepening self-discontent. No party vowed to these uninspiring methods and depressing experiences can hope to survive at a time when political life is

becoming more and more vivid and real. The Moderates must give up their vague unpracticality and adopt a definite aim, a distinct programme, effective methods.

We do not know whether the Moderate leaders could ever bring themselves so far as to stand out for a real measure of control as distinguished from a wider power of criticism. But there is no reason why they should not make up their minds to fight for a popular electorate based on education, exclusive of class and religious distinctions, free election and an elective majority, and refuse to be satisfied with less. In that case, the Nationalist party would represent a more advanced force standing out for a measure of effective control and a democratic electorate based on literacy, in addition to the Moderate demands. If, on the other hand, the Moderates would also accept control as a necessary factor of any political settlement, Moderate and Nationalist would again come into line and stand on a common platform, the only distinction being that one party would accept the settlement as a satisfactory solution for the present, while the other would regard it merely as an instrument for developing autonomy. But while the exclusory clauses of the Moderate Convention's Constitution remain, this drawing together is not possible, or, if it were possible, could not be sincere and effective. Those clauses are a sign and pledge of the Mehta-Morley alliance and ratify the policy of which Mr. Gokhale's Poona speech was the expression, the policy of rallying the Moderates to the Government's support and crushing the Nationalists.