Jealgora, March 31, 1939.
My Dear Mahatmaji,
I saw your telegram to Sunil which you sent in reply to his long telegram regarding my health. When you wired suggesting my going to Delhi, I thought it best to let the Doctors speak out their mind on the subject. So Sunil wired to you.
I have been pondering over the various points in your letter of the 24th instant to me (from the train) and your letter to Sarat of the same date and over the situation in general. It is really unfortunate for me that I fell ill at such a critical time. But events have so moved in rapid succession that I have not had a chance of quick recovery. Besides, both before Tripuri and after, I have not been treated in certain influential quarters (there is no reference to you at all in this — let me make it clear) with the consideration that was due to me. But there is no reason for me to resign on account of my illness. As I stated in my letter of yesterday (my second letter to you) no President, to my knowledge, resigned when he was in prison even for a long period. It may be that I shall have to resign after all — but if that takes place, it will be due to quite different reasons.
I think I said in my second letter that though pressure was being brought to bear on me to resign, I was resisting. My resignation would mean the beginning of a new phase in Congress politics which I want to avoid till the last. If we come to the parting of the ways, a bitter civil war will commence and whatever be the upshot of it — the Congress will be weakened for some time to come and the benefit will be reaped by the British Government. It is in your hands to save the Congress and the country from this calamity. People who are bitterly opposed for various reasons to Sardar Patel and his group, still have confidence in you and believe that you can take a dispassionate and non-partisan view of things. To them you are a national
figure — above parties and groups — and you can therefore restore unity between the warring elements.
If for any reason that confidence is shaken — which God forbid — and you are regarded as a partisan, then God help us and the Congress.
There is no doubt that there is today a wide gulf between the two main parties or blocs in the Congress. But the gulf can yet be bridged — that by you. I cannot say anything about the mentality of your political opponents — Tripuri had given us a very bad experience of them. But I can speak for our side. We are not vindictive and we do not nurse grievances. We are prepared to “forgive and forget” — as they say — and join hands once again for the sake of the common cause, viz., the political and economic emancipation of India. When I talk of “our side,” I exclude the official CSP. We discovered for the first time at Tripuri what a small following the official CSP had. The CSP has now split — the rank and file and several provincial branches having revolted against the official leader because of what is called their vacillating policy. A large section of the CSP will move with us in future, in spite of what the top leadership may do. If you have any doubts on this score, you have only to wait and see.
The letter of my brother Sarat to you shows that he is feeling very bitter. This, I presume, is due largely to his experiences at Tripuri, because he had no such feeling when he left Calcutta for Tripuri. Naturally, he knows more about the happenings at Tripuri than I do—because he could move about freely, meet people and obtain information. But though I was confined to bed, I got enough information from several independent sources regarding the attitude of responsible circles politically opposed to us — to make me feel thoroughly sick of the whole affair. I may say further that, when I left Tripuri, I felt such a loathing and disgust for Congress politics as I have not done for the last nineteen years. Thank God, I have got over that feeling now and have recovered my composure.
Jawahar in one of his letters (and possibly press statements) remarked that the AICC office had deteriorated under my presidentship. I resent that
remark as unfair and unjust. He did not perhaps realise that in trying to damn me, he has damned Kripalaniji and the entire staff. The office is in the hands of the Secretary and his staff and if it deteriorates, it is they who are responsible for it. I am writing to Jawahar at length on this point. I am mentioning this to you because you have said something about the interim administration in your letter to Sarat. The only way in which we can help the office is to appoint a Permanent Secretary at once, even if there is delay in appointing the rest of the Working Committee. But if the Working Committee is going to be appointed soon, we need not appoint the General Secretary in advance.
I shall be grateful if you could let me know your reaction to Pant’s resolution. You are in this advantageous position that you can take a dispassionate view of things — provided, of course, you get to know the whole story of Tripuri. Judging from the papers, most of the people who have seen you so far, seem to belong to one school — namely, those who supported Pant’s resolution. But that does not matter. You can easily assess things at their proper value, regardless of the persons who visit you.
You can easily imagine my own view of Pant’s resolution. But my personal feelings do not matter so much. In public life we have often to subordinate personal feelings to public considerations. As I have said in a previous letter, whatever one may think of Pant’s resolution from the purely constitutional point of view, since it has been passed by the Congress, I feel bound by it. Now do you regard that resolution as one of no-confidence in me and do you feel that I should resign in consequence thereof? Your view in this matter will influence me considerably.
Perhaps you are aware that at Tripuri it was given out by those who were canvassing in support of Pant’s resolution that telephonic conversation had taken place with Rajkot and that resolution had your full support. A report to that effect appeared in the daily press also. It was further given out in the private conversation that nothing short of that resolution in its entirety would satisfy either you or your orthodox followers. Personally, I did not and do not believe in such reports, but they undoubtedly had their vote-catching
value. When Pant’s resolution was shown me for the first time by Sardar Patel, I suggested to him (Rajen Babu and Maulana Azad were also there at the time) that if certain changes were made, the resolution in the amended form would be passed by the Congress unanimously. The amended form of the resolution was also sent to Sardar Patel, but there was no response from his side. Their attitude seemed to be — not a word, not a comma, should be changed. I suppose Rajkumari Amrit Kaur has handed over to you the amended form of the resolution. If the object of Pant’s Resolution was to reiterate faith in your principles and your leadership and guidance, that was provided in the amended resolution — but if the object was to avenge the result of the Presidential Election, then, of course, the amended resolution did not suffice. Personally I do not see how Pant’s Resolution has enhanced your prestige, influence and authority. 45 votes were cast against you in the Subjects Committee and in the Open Session. Whatever interested parties may say, my information from various independent sources is to the effect that in spite of the neutrality of the Congress Socialist Party at least 800 votes, if not more, out of about 2,200 were cast against you. And if the Congress Socialist Party had voted as they did in the Subjects Committee, then the resolution would have been defeated. In any case, the result of the voting would have been problematical. With slight changes in the resolution, not one vote would have been cast against the resolution and your leadership would have had the unanimous support of all Congressmen. Your prestige before the British Government and before the whole world would have gone up like a shot. Instead, your name and prestige were exploited by those who wanted to wreak vengeance on us. Consequently, instead of enhancing your prestige and influence they have dragged it down to an unimaginable depth
— for the whole world now knows that though you or your followers managed to get a majority at Tripuri, there is an existence of a powerful opposition. If matters are allowed to drift, this opposition is bound to gain in strength and in volume. What is the future of a party that is deprived of radical, youthful and progressive elements? The future is similar to that of the Liberal Party of Great Britain.
I have said enough to acquaint you with my reaction to Pant’s Resolution. I shall now be grateful if you kindly let me know what your reaction is. Do you
approve of Pant’s Resolution or would you rather have seen it passed unanimously in an amended form on the lines that we had suggested?
There is one other matter to which I shall refer in this letter — that is the question of your programme. I submitted my views to you on the 15th February at Wardha. What has happened since then has served to confirm my views to justify my prediction. For months I have been telling friends that there would be a crisis in Europe in spring which would continue till summer. The international situation, as well as our own position at home convinced me nearly 8 months ago that the time had come for us to force the issue of Purna Swaraj. Unfortunately for us and for the country, you do not share our optimism. You are obsessed with the idea of corruption within the Congress. Moreover, the bogey of violence alarms you. Though I am at one with you in your determination to root out corruption within the Congress, I do not think that taking India as a whole, there is more corruption today than before and so far as violence is concerned, I feel sure there is far less of it today than before. Previously, Bengal, Punjab and United Provinces could have been regarded as the home of organised revolutionary violence. Today there is much more of the spirit of non-violence there. And speaking for Bengal, I can say with full authority that the province was never more non- violent during the last 30 years than today. For these and other reasons we should lose no time in placing our National Demand before the British Government in the form of an ultimatum. The idea of an ultimatum does not appeal to you or to Pandit Jawaharlal. But in all your public life, you have given any number of ultimatums to the authorities and have advanced the public cause thereby. The other day at Rajkot you did the same thing. What objection can there be, therefore, to submitting our National Demand in the form of an ultimatum? If you do so and prepare for the coming struggle simultaneously, I am sure that we shall be able to win Purna Swaraj very soon. The British Government will either respond to our demand without a fight — or, if the struggle does take place, in our present circumstances, it cannot be a long-drawn one. I am so confident and so optimistic on this point that I feel that if we take courage in both hands and go ahead, we shall have Swaraj inside of 18 months at the most.
I feel so strongly on this point that I am prepared to make any sacrifice in this connection. If you take up the struggle, I shall most gladly help you to the best of my ability. If you feel that the Congress will be able to fight better with another President, I shall gladly step aside. If you feel that the Congress will be able to fight more effectively with a Working Committee of your choice, I shall gladly fall in line with your wishes. All that I want is that you and the Congress should in this critical hour stand up and resume the struggle for Swaraj. If self-effacement will further the national cause, I assure you most solemnly that I am prepared to efface myself completely. I think I love my country sufficiently to be able to do this.
Pardon me for saying that the way you have been recently conducting the States peoples’ struggle, does not appeal to me. You risked your precious and valuable life for Rajkot and while fighting for the Rajkot people you suspended the struggle in all other States. Why should you do so? There are six hundred and odd States in India and among them Rajkot is a tiny one. It would not be exaggeration to call the Rajkot struggle a flea-bite. Why should we not fight simultaneously all over the country and have a comprehensive plan for the purpose? This is what millions of your countrymen think, though out of personal reverence for you, they may not say so openly.
In conclusion, I may say that many people like myself cannot enthuse over the terms of the Rajkot settlement. We, as well as the Nationalist Press, have called it a great victory — but how much have we gained? Sir Maurice Gwyer is neither our man nor is he an independent agent. He is a Government man. What point is there in making him the umpire? We are hoping that his verdict will be in our favour. But supposing he declares against us, what will be our position?
Moreover, Sir Maurice Gwyer is a part and parcel of the Federal Scheme we have resolved to reject. In the case of a conflict with the British Government, if we decide to have a High Court Judge or a Sessions Judge as umpire, we can always have a settlement with the British Government. But what shall we gain from such a settlement? Further, there are many people who fail to understand why after the interview with the Viceroy, you should be waiting
in Delhi. Perhaps, in view of your weak health, a rest was necessary before undertaking another long journey. But to the British Government and its supporters it may appear as if you are attaching too much importance to the Federal Chief Justice and thereby enhancing his prestige.
My letter has become too long, so I must stop here. If I have said anything which appears to you to be erroneous, I hope you will pardon me. I know you always like people to speak frankly and openly. That is what has emboldened me in writing this frank and long letter.
I have been progressing steadily though slowly. I do hope this will find you better and your blood pressure much lower.
With respectful Pranams.
Yours affectionately,
Subhas.