Jealgora—6th April, 1939.
My dear Mahatmaji,
In one of your letters to Mejdada, my brother Sarat, you suggested a heart-to- heart talk between the leaders of both parties with a view to clearing the ground for united action in future. I think it is a magnificent idea and I am fully prepared to do my best in this matter regardless of what has happened in the past. Will you kindly let me know if you would like me to do anything in this behalf and if to, what? Personally, I feel that your influence and personality could achieve much in this endeavour to bring about unity. Will you not make one last supreme effort to bring everybody together before we give up all hope of unity? I would beg of you once again to remember in what
light the country still regards you. You are not a partisan, and people, therefore, still look up to you to bring together all the warring elements.
I have been pondering deeply over the advice you have given me regarding the formation of the Working Committee. I feel that your advice is the counsel of despair. It destroys all hope of unity. It will not save the Congress from a split — on the contrary, it will make the path safe for such a contingency. To advise a homogenous cabinet in the present circumstances will mean advising the parties to part company now. Is that not a terrible responsibility? Do you feel quite sure that joint work is impossible? On our side we do not think so. We are prepared to do our best to “forgive and forget” and join hands for the sake of common cause and we can look up to you to bring about an honourable compromise. I have already written and spoken to you that the composition of the Congress being what it is — and there being no possibility in the immediate future of any remarkable change, the best course would be to have a composite cabinet, in which all the groups would be represented as far as possible.
I understand that you are against this idea of a composite cabinet. Is your opposition due to the grounds of principle (viz., joint work is impossible in your view) or is it because you feel that the “Gandhiites” (I am using this expression in the absence of anything better and you will please pardon me for doing so) should have a larger representation on the cabinet ? In the latter case, please let me know, so that I may have an opportunity of reconsidering the matter. In the former case, please reconsider the advice you have already tendered in the light of what I am submitting in this letter. At Haripura, when I suggested inviting the Socialists to serve on the cabinet, you told me distinctly that you were in favour of my doing so. Has the situation changed so materially since then as to induce you to insist on a homogeneous cabinet?
You have referred in your letters to the two parties being so “diametrically opposed.” You have not amplified the point and it is not clear if the opposition you refer to is based on programme or on personal relations. Personal relations are in my view, a passing phenomenon. We may quarrel and fight, but we can shake hands and make up our differences. Take for
instance, Swarajist episode in recent Congress history. As far as I am aware, after a period of opposition, the relations between Deshbandhu and Pandit Motilalji with yourself became as sweet as humanly possible. In Great Britain, the three major parties can always join hands and work on the same cabinet when an emergency arises. In continental countries like France, every cabinet is normally a composite cabinet. Are we less patriotic than Britishers and Frenchmen? If we are not, then why cannot we have composite cabinets functioning effectively?
If you think that your opposition is based on programme, etc. rather than on personal considerations, I should like very much to have your view in this matter.
Wherein do you think that our programmes differ, and that too so fundamentally that joint action is not possible? I .know that we have certain differences, but as I wrote to my ex-colleagues of the Working Committee in reply to their letter of resignation, our points of agreement are, in my view, more numerous than our points of difference. I still adhere to this view — Tripuri notwithstanding.
You have said in one of your letters in connection with my idea of an ultimatum on the issue of Swaraj, that there is no atmosphere for non-violent mass action. But did you not have non-violent mass action in Rajkot? Are you not having it in some other States also? These States’ people are comparatively untrained in the practice of Satyagraha. We in British India can claim more experience and training — comparatively speaking at least. If the States’ people can be permitted to resort to Satyagraha in their struggle for civil liberty and responsible government, why not we in British India?
Now take the National Demand Resolution passed at the Tripuri Congress with the support of the Gandhiites. Though it has beautifully vague phrases and several pious platitudes, it has, in a certain sense, much in common with my idea of an ultimatum and preparing for the coming struggle. Now, do you approve of this resolution? If you do, then why cannot you go a step further and accept my plan?
I shall now come to Pandit Pant’s Resolution. The important part of it (last portion, I mean) contains two points. Firstly, the Working Committee must command your confidence implicitly. Secondly, it must be formed in accordance with your wishes. If you advise a homogeneous cabinet and such cabinet is formed, one could perhaps say that it has been formed “in accordance with your wishes.” But could it be claimed that it commands your confidence? Will it be open to me to get up at the meeting of the AICC and tell the members that you have advised the formation of a homogeneous cabinet and that the new cabinet commands your confidence? On the other hand, if you advise the formation of a cabinet which does not command your confidence, will you be giving effect to the Pant Resolution; will you be doing the right thing, from your point of view? I would beg of you to consider this aspect of the question. If you take cognisance of the Pant Resolution, you will not only have to communicate your wishes regarding new Working Committee, but you will, at the same time, have to advise the formation of such a Committee as will command your confidence.
You have not yet said anything as to the merits of the Pant Resolution. Do you approve of it? Or would you rather have had a unanimously passed resolution, more or less on the lines suggested by us — which would reiterate faith in your principles and confidence in your guidance, without the controversial clauses? Then, what is the President’s position regarding appointing the WC after this resolution was passed? I am again asking this question because the present Constitution is practically your handiwork and your opinion in this matter will carry great weight with me. There is another question in this connection which I have been asking you. Do you regard this resolution as one of no-confidence in me? If so, I shall resign at once and that too unconditionally. Some papers have criticised this question of mine in my press statement on the ground that I should decide for myself what the significance of the resolution is.
I have sense enough to give my own interpretation, but, there are occasions when personal interpretations should not be one’s sole guide. Speaking quite frankly, I feel that my stand has been justified by the result of the Presidential
Election. I have now no desire whatsoever to stick to office for one day unless I can thereby advance the public cause as I understand it. The hesitation or the delay that has arisen on my side is because it is not so easy to decide. Among my supporters there are two schools of thought — one holding that I should break off negotiations at once as being a hopeless effort and tender my resignation. The latter have been bringing great pressure to bear on me, but I am resisting. I want to be clear before my own conscience that I have striven till the last to preserve unity within our ranks. Moreover, I know what my resignation will mean in the present circumstances and what its consequences will be. I should add here that the first school — viz., those who want me to exhaust all possibility of a compromise — believe that you will be able to take a thoroughly non-partisan view of things and thereby bring the two parties together.
I must explain further why I say that I shall resign automatically if you tell that Pant’s resolution signifies no-confidence. You know very well that I do not follow you blindly in all that you say or believe as so many of my countrymen do. Why then should I resign if you opine that the resolution signifies no-confidence? The reason is plain and simple. I feel it as galling to my conscience to hold onto office, if the greatest personality in India today feels — though he may not say openly — that the passing of the resolution should automatically have brought in my resignation. This attitude is perhaps dictated more by personal regard for you and your opinion in this matter.
Perhaps, as some papers suggest, you have an idea that the Old Guard should be put back into office. In that event I would beg of you to come back to active politics, become a four-anna Congress member and assume direct charge of the Working Committee. Pardon me for saying so and I say this without meaning offence to anybody — there is a world of difference between yourself and your lieutenants, even your chosen lieutenants. There are people who will do anything for you — but not for them. Will you believe me when I say that at the Presidential Election even some Gandhiites in several provinces voted for me, against the direction of the Old Guard? If your personality is not dragged into the picture, I shall continue to have their
support — the Old Guard notwithstanding. At Tripuri the Old Guard cleverly dropped out of the picture and more cleverly pitted me against you. (But there was no quarrel between yourself and myself). Afterwards they said that Tripuri was a great victory for them and a defeat for me. The fact of the matter is that it was neither a victory for them nor a defeat for me. It was a victory for you (without any cause for a fight with you at all) but a Pyrrhic victory — a victory purchased by a certain loss of prestige.
But I am digressing. I wanted to appeal to you to come forward and directly and openly conduct the affairs of the Congress. This will simplify matters. Much of the opposition against the Old Guard — and opposition there certainly is — will automatically vanish.
If you cannot do this, then I have an alternative suggestion to make. Please resume the national struggle for independence as we have been demanding and begin by delivering the ultimatum to the British Government. In that event, we shall all gladly retire from our official positions. If you so desire, we shall gladly hand over these positions to whomsoever you like or trust. But only on one condition, the fight for independence must be resumed. People like myself feel that today we have an opportunity which is rare in the life- time of a nation. For that reason we are prepared to make any sacrifice that will help the resumption of the fight.
If till the last you insist that a composite cabinet is unworkable and a homogeneous cabinet is the only alternative before us and if you want me to form a cabinet of my choice, I would earnestly request you to give me your vote of confidence till next Congress. If in the meantime, we fail to justify ourselves by our service and suffering, we shall stand condemned before the Congress and we shall naturally and quite properly be kicked out of office. Your vote of confidence will mean the vote of confidence of the AICC in the present circumstances. If you do not give us your vote of confidence but at the same time ask us to form a homogeneous cabinet, you will not be giving effect to Pant’s Resolution.
Once again I will beg of you to let me know if your opposition to a composite cabinet is due to considerations of principle or to the fact that you would like the Old Guard to have a larger representation on the cabinet than I suggested in my first letter to you, dated the 25th March.
Before I close this letter I shall refer to one or two personal things. You have remarked in one letter that you hope that whatever happens, “our private relations will not suffer.” I cherish this hope with all my heart. May I say in this connection that if there is anything in life on which I pride myself, it is this that I am the son of a gentleman and as such am a gentleman. Deshbandhu Das often used to tell us, “Life is larger than Politics.” That lesson I have learnt from him. I shall not remain in the political field one single day if by doing so I shall fall from the standards of gentlemanliness which are so deeply ingrained in my mind from infancy and which I feel are in my very blood. I have no means of knowing how you view me as a man — in a way, you have seen so little of me. And my political opponents have carried so many tales against me to you. In recent months I have come to know that for the last few months I have been the victim of subtle but sinister propaganda carried on against me from mouth to mouth. I would have brought this matter to your notice long ago but I could not get sufficient tangible evidence of what was being said and by whom. Laterly, I have come to know much as to what has been said, though I am still in the dark as to who exactly the propagandists are.
Once again I have digressed. In a letter you expressed the hope that in whatever I did, I would “be guided by God.” Believe me, Mahatmaji, all these days I have been praying for only one thing — viz., for light as to the path that would be best for my country and my country’s freedom. I have asked for strength and inspiration to completely efface myself — should the need and occasion arise. It is my firm conviction that a nation can live, only if the individuals composing it be ready to die for its sake whenever it is necessary. This moral (or spiritual) “harakiri” is not an easy thing. But may God grant me the strength to face it whenever the country’s interests demand it.
I hope you will maintain your improvement. I am progressing steadily.
With respectful Pranams,
Yours affectionately,
Subhas.