Letters to the Editor
THE INDIAN TRAGEDY
.[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sin,—An article on " The Indian Tragedy," in your issue of April 19th, contains some surprishig statements and some not less surprising conclusions. You assert that " Mr. Gandhi is a supreme symbol of the relentless urge for unimpeded self expression which is the strength and force of awakeired India." In the same issue I find an artiele from your own corresp-ondent at Bombay, on " Mr. Gandhi—Complete Nihilist." If its conclusions are correct—and who that has watched the recent current of events in India can question thern ?—" his (Mr. Gandhi's) doctrine is one of complete anarchy," and " it appears that he advocates anarchy because he is himself suffering from a complete anarchy of thought." This scarcely seems to agree with your own vague generalization quoted above which exhibits Mr. Gandhi as the supreme exponent of India's struggle for self-expression ; unless, indeed, the form of Self-expression for which India is struggling is anarchy itself, or, as you somewhat cynically put it at the end of your article, for " the right to go to the devil in its own way." It seems scarcely reasonable to believe this ; to hold that awakened India—if such a term can in any sense be properly applied to the vast illiterate masses of her rural population—is driven by an urge towards anarchy and self- destruction. Doubtless you do not believe this any more than I do ; but if so, what becomes of your sweeping but quite baseless contention that Mr. Gandhi is the supreme expression of India's aspirations?
No, sir ; the problems of India are not to be solved by facile generalizations of a pseudo-psychological type, divorced from all considerations of live realities. The " peaceful, order-loving Englishman " with " his puritanical sense of duty " and the former British official in India, both of whom you appear to disparage as out-of-date, mistaken, if well- intentioned individuals, are capable of appraising existing Indian conditions more reasonably and more accurately than the high-browed intellectual who revels in vague and unverified generalizations, and. in appeals to a principle of self-deter- mination which, so far as India is concerned, with its chaotic variety of human material, is utterly indefinite and un- definable. The one fatally significant feature of the Indian situation is the persistent refusal of the Indian politician and of his many sympathizers and supporters in this country to face realities and to cope with them. They prefer to wander in the region of the imaginary and-the pseudo-ideal ; and, may I say it with all respect, articles such as yours encourage the mischief. There is no question whatever of any " psychological inhibition " ; the question is one of Indian realities and of future Indian well-being, with the avoidance, not the attainment of anarchy.
Though there is much material for criticism in your article
I must avoid trespassing unduly on your space. But one matter cannot be left unnoticed. That the present refOrmed Indian constitution was intended to be an experimental and educative measure is clearly and unmistakably indicated by Section 84A of the Government of India Act of 1919, no less than by the terms of the Secretary of State's original announce- ment of August, 1917. You on the other hand, if I understand rightly, hold that Indian politicians are correct in their contention that what was promised in 1919 was the con- cession of complete Dominion Status as soon as a scheme in that behalf could be worked out ; and you apparently suggest that this should be done at the approaching Round Table Conference. That no such promise was made will be clear to anyone who cares to refer to the authorities which I have quoted ; though it is true that during the past decade ill- considered or prejudiced utterances on the part of British and Indian politicians and journalists have by a process of distorting the original intention of Parliament, as embodied in the Act of 1919, lent some colour to the ill-founded contention which you support.
You would, I understand, make a very early concession of Dominion Status to India, apparently without reference to the recommendations of the Statutory Commission, and largely if not mainly for the purpose of " disarming the bulk of oppos, itiOn in India." Here emerges once more that fatal, neglectful
disregard of Indian realities ; that sublime, very pathetic; trust in the dreams of the visionary without any reference to practical considerations, which has already, worked so much ill for India. Let all her true friends pray that you may not have to remember your advice with unavailing remorse amid the anarchy, the blood and the tears which a concession such as you advocate must sooner or later inevitably [This letter from -Sir Patrick Fagan is welcome in itself, but also because it illustrates to perfection the " psychological inhibition" of the Englishman to which we beg leave once more to refer. An attitude of mind which rates order and govern- ment as the only " Indian realities " worth considering is ipso facto incapable of appreciating " the other fellow's point of view," incapable -of grasping the spiritual agony of "denation- alization" (cf. the two letters that follow).
As regards the immediate issue—well, our own correspon- dent writing from Bombay admits that the time for half- measures is past. Now, he says, it must be " everything or nothing." The moral situation is identical with that immedi-- ately preceding the Treaty. creating the Irish Free State. Owing to the obstinate refusal of Mr. Lloyd George's Govern- ment to apply psychological common sense Ireland went through " the anarchy, the blood and the tears " of a senseless civil war. Ultimately Mr. Lloyd George, Lord Birkenhead, &c., had to come off the Parliamentary high horse and meet the " rebels," Arthur Griffiths and Michael Collins, as equals round a table. We therefore urge the Government, after the Statutory Commission has reported, to prefer intelligence and sympathy to precept and precedent, the spirit of Great Brit- ain's " pledge " (call it a promise only, if you like) to the letter of a Government of India Act. If Members of Parliament can be brought to understand the real issue they will, we do not doubt, choose "the risks of peace "—i.e., take, in the words of our correspondent in India, the " tremendous risk " of ratifying an agreed scheme of " virtual responsible govern- ment."—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
