Bande Mataram

Nationalist Differences

02-May-1908

A great deal of capital is being made by the Moderate Press of the difference of attitude between Bengal and Maharashtra Nationalism over the acceptance of the creed. The Mahratta Nationalists are many of them willing to sign the creed on the understanding that it is not put forward as an ultimate aim of Indian political effort. The Bengal Nationalists, with one or two exceptions, are determined to have nothing to do with the creed on any conditions, so long as it is put forward as a creed at all or as a clause of exclusion. They take this attitude, on three grounds, first, because they believe the creed to be irrational and impracticable, secondly, because it is opposed to the doctrines they have always publicly professed, and thirdly, because they consider no Congress session has the right to bind down individual delegates or future sessions to a particular statement of belief or precise definition of objects which would limit the aspirations of a people. To sign it would be against their reason, against their conscience and against their rights. The Mahrattas take a different standpoint. Mr. Tilak at the Nationalist Conference in Surat declared that absolute autonomy must be the ultimate goal of our efforts, but a partial autonomy may be a halfway house, the former being then the ideal of the party, the latter a practical and immediate aim of present-day politics. From this standpoint the original draft in Mr. Gokhale's Constitution which described Colonial self-government as an ultimate goal was objectionable, but the statement of self-government in the Empire

Page 1084

as an immediate goal was permissible. When the Convention was first held at Surat, many of the Nationalist delegates from Maharashtra saw no objection to signing the creed as it stood, and some of them went to the Pandal and offered to sign but were turned away. It was because the Bengal delegates refused to sign that the party as a whole did not appear at the Pandal to resume the struggle for progress. The position taken up by Mr. Tilak and the Mahrattas has not altered. They object to binding down the future by a creed, but they would not object to signing a statement putting self-government within the Empire as an immediate object if such signature be necessary for unity; they refuse however to associate themselves with any creed, clause or subscription which would have the result of excluding a large section of the Progressive party. There are and always will be minor differences of opinion among the Nationalists, but they are united on three cardinal principles: 1) That nothing short of absolute autonomy can permanently satisfy Indian aspiration; 2) That prayer, petition and protest can never be an effective method of political agitation; 3) That passive resistance and self-help can alone advance the country at the present stage.