Jealgora, 25th March, 1939.
My dear Mahatmaji,
I hope you have seen the statement I issued today (Saturday, the 15th instant) in reply to those who were blaming me for causing a stalemate in the affairs of the Congress. The immediate and urgent problem before us is the formation of the new Working Committee. A satisfactory solution of this problem entails a prior consideration of some other problems of wider significance. Nevertheless, I shall take up the former problem first.
With regard to this problem, I shall be grateful if you kindly let me know your opinion on the following points:
1. What is your present conception of the composition of the Working Committee? Must it be a homogeneous body or should it be drawn from different parties or groups within the Congress, so that the Committee, as a whole, may represent as far as possible, the composition of the general body of the Congress?
2. If you still adhere to the view that the Committee should be homogeneous in character, then obviously people like myself on the one side and Sardar Patel and others on the other, cannot be on the same Committee. (I must mention here that I have always combated the idea that the Working Committee should be homogeneous in character).
3. If you agree that different parties or groups should be represented on the Working Committee, what should be their numerical representation?
In my view there are two main parties or ‘blocs’ in the Congress. They are probably more or less equally balanced. At the Presidential Election we had a majority. At Tripuri it was the other way, but this was due to the attitude of the Congress Socialist Party. If the CSP had not remained neutral, then in spite of various handicaps (I shall refer to them in a subsequent letter or when we meet) we would have had a majority in the open session.
4. It appears to me as an equitable arrangement if I suggest the names of seven members and if you ask Sardar to suggest seven.
5. Further If I am to continue as President and function properly, it is necessary that the General Secretory must be a man of my choice.
6. The Treasurer’s name may be suggested by Sardar Patel.
I shall now refer to one of two salient implications of Pandit Pant’s resolution. (I shall write on this topic at length in a separate letter). Firstly, do you regard it as a resolution of no-confidence in me and would you like me to resign in consequence thereof? I ask this question because several interpretations have been put on this resolution, even by the supporters of that resolution.
Secondly, what exactly is the position of the President after Pandit Pant’s resolution was passed? Article XV of the Congress Constitution confers certain powers on the President in the matter of appointing the Working Committee and that article in the Constitution stands unaltered to this day. At the same time, Pandit Pant’s resolution lays down that the Working Committee is to be constituted by me in accordance with your wishes. What is the net result? Do I count at all? Are you to draw up the full list of the members of the Working Committee according to your free choice and will, and I am merely to announce your decision? The effect of this would be to nullify article XV of the Congress Constitution without amending it.
In this connection I must state that the above clause in Pandit Pant’s resolution is clearly unconstitutional and ultra vires. In fact, Pandit Pant’s resolution itself was out of order, having been received too late. I would have been within my rights in ruling out of order Panditji’s entire resolution, just as Maulana Azad was within his right in ruling out of order Shri Sarat Chandra Bose’s amendment to the National Demand Resolution in the open session of the Congress. Further, from the purely constitutional point of view, even after admitting Pandit Pant’s resolution, I should have ruled out of order the last clause pertaining to the formation of the Working Committee, since it militated against Article XV of the Constitution. But I am temperamentally too democratic to attach much importance to technical or constitutional points. Further, I felt that it would be unmanly to take shelter behind the Constitution at a time when I felt that there was the possibility of an adverse vote.
Before I close this letter I shall refer to one other point. If I am to continue as President, despite all the obstacles, handicaps and difficulties — how would you like me to function? I remember that during the last twelve months you occasionally (perhaps often) advised me to the effect that you did not want me to be a dummy President and that you would like to see me asserting myself. At Wardha on the 15th February, when I found that you did not agree with my programme, I told you that there were two alternatives before me — either to efface myself or to stand up for my honest convictions. If I remember aright, you told me in reply that unless I voluntarily accepted your
view-point, self-effacement would in reality amount to self-suppression and that you could not approve of self-suppression. If I am to continue as President, would you still advise me not to function as a dummy President as you advised me last year?
All that I have said above presuppose that it is still possible for all parties or groups in the Congress to work together — in spite of all that has happened since the presidential election and particularly at Tripuri Congress.
In my next letter I shall deal with general problems, to some of which I referred in my press statement of today.
I am progressing steadily though rather slowly. The main obstacle to rapid recovery seems to be want of sufficient sleep.
I hope you have been improving steadily, despite your heavy pre-occupation. With Pranams,
Yours affectionately,
Subhas