Jealgora, April 10.
My dear Mahatmaji,
Apart from telegrams and short letters, I have so far addressed four important letters to you — dated the 25th March (posted on the 26th), 29th March, 31st March, and 6th April — dealing with Congress affairs in general and the formation of the Working Committee in particular. I am sorry that the correspondence has been so prolonged and I wish I could have said everything in one long letter. But there were two difficulties in the way — firstly, the strain involved in writing a long and exhaustive letter and secondly, fresh points in your letters which demanded replies from me. I hope that this will be my last letter in this series. Herein, I shall try to clarify some points where I may be open to misunderstanding — recapitulate the principal points in my previous letter and make a final submission and appeal to you.
1. Re. Corruption and Violence: If I have understood you correctly, you are opposed to the idea of an ultimatum and early resumption of the national struggle because you feel that there is too much of corruption and the spirit of violence among us. We have been discussing that question of corruption in the Working Committee for several months and I think we are in general agreement on this question — with this difference that I do not think that there is so
much of it that we are incapacitated for an early struggle for Purna Swaraj. On the contrary, the longer we shall drift along the path of constitutionalism and the longer our people have a taste of the loaves and fishes of office, the greater will be the possibility of corruption increasing. Further, I may say that I have some personal knowledge of political parties in Europe today and I may claim without any fear of contradiction that judged from the ethical point of view, we are in no way inferior to them and perhaps we are superior in some respects. The spectre of corruption does not, therefore, appeal to me. Moreover, a call for further sacrifice and suffering in the cause of the country’s freedom will be the best antidote to corruption and will incidentally expose to the public eye any corrupt persons who may have crept into — or gained ascendancy within — our own ranks. To put an analogy, history furnishes instances of astute statesmen launching on a fight with external enemies in order to ward off enemies at home.
Re. the existence of the spirit of violence: I adhere to my previous statement. Within the ranks of Congressmen and of those who are supporters of the Congress, there is, on the whole, less violence today than before. I have already given you my arguments for disagreeing with you on this point and need not repeat them. It may be that there is the spirit of violence today among the opponents of the Congress, leading to riots which are being forcibly suppressed by Congress Governments. But that is quite a different matter and should not lead us to the view that the spirit of violence has increased among Congressmen or their supporters. Would it not be too much to hold up our fight for independence till other organisations with which we have no connection whatsoever — for instance, the Muslim League, become non-violent in spirit and in action?
2. Re. Pandit Pant’s Resolution, I wanted to know whether you approve of the form in which the resolution was moved by Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant and finally passed or whether you would have preferred an amended form, more or less on the lines suggested by us, which
would have been unanimously passed. I should also like to know whether you regard the resolution as a vote of no-confidence in me. For ready reference I am giving below the original form of the resolution and one of the amended forms.
ORIGINAL FORM
”In view of various misunderstandings that have arisen in the Congress and the country on account of the controversies in connection with the Presidential Election and after, it is desirable that the Congress should clarify the position and declare its general policy.
This Congress declares its firm adherence to the fundamental policies which have governed its programme in the past years under the guidance of Mahatma Gandhi and is definitely of opinion that there should be no break in these policies and they should continue to govern the Congress programme in future. This Congress expresses its confidence in the work of the Working Committee which functioned during the last year and regrets that any aspersions should have been cast against any of its members.
In view of the critical situation that may develop during the coming year and in view of the fact that Mahatma Gandhi alone can lead the Congress and the country to victory during such crisis, the Congress regards it as imperative that executive should command his implicit confidence and requests the President to appoint the Working Committee in accordance with the wishes of Gandhiji.”
AMENDED FORM
“In view of various misunderstandings that have arisen in the Congress and the country on account of the controversies in connection with the Presidential Election and after, it is desirable that the Congress should clarify the position and declare its general policy.
This Congress declares its firm adherence to the fundamental policies which have governed its programme in the past years under the
guidance of Mahatma Gandhi and is definitely of opinion that there should be no break in these policies and that they should continue to govern the Congress programme in future. The Committee expresses its confidence in the work of the Working Committee which functioned during the last year.
In view of the critical situation that may develop during the coming year, the Congress considers Mahatma Gandhi’s guidance and cooperation to be as essential in the future as it was in the past.”
3. Re. Congress Socialist Party: The remarks in my letter of the 31st March about the Congress Socialist Party were made under the impression I gathered from reports and speculations in the press at the time. The impression I gathered was that the official leaders of the CSP would continue in their policy of vacillation which might lead to their launching on a new policy in future, viz., supporting the Old Guard. I thought that that might mislead you into thinking that the entire CSP would “cross the floor” and be at the disposal of the Old Guard. Consequently, I wanted to tell you that a large section of the CSP would move with us, in spite of what the top leadership might do. I could say this, because I had heard of the effect of the leaders’ neutrality policy at Tripuri on their followers. Some provinces had revolted — as also the rank and file — many of whom had obeyed the leaders’ whip, only under moral coercion or out of a sense of discipline. Subsequent to my writing to you, the information that has reached does not warrant the impression that I gathered from the press about the future policy of the official leaders of the CSP and in that event, the question of a split within the Party need not arise at all.
4. Re. Homogenous vs. Composite Cabinet: I have carefully perused and considered your arguments in this connection, but I remain unconvinced so far. Perhaps you have other arguments also which might help to convince me. Your main point is that we differ so much on fundamentals that joint action is impossible. At the Haripura Congress you were of the same views as ourselves and till the eve of
the Presidential election, joint action was possible. What has happened since then to render it impossible? And what, in your view, are our differences on fundamentals?
I should also like to know whether your objection to a composite Cabinet is based solely on grounds of principle or also on the fifty- fifty proportion, which I suggested in my first letter to you, dated the 25th March. I suggested in that letter that I may suggest seven names and Sardar Patel seven, for your approval. But it is equally possible for you to suggest all the fourteen names if you accept the above proportion. In case you do not accept that proportion and that is a stumbling block in the way of our having an agreed composite cabinet, you may kindly let me know, so that I may have an opportunity of reconsidering the matter.
5. Advice to Shri Sarat Bose: You wrote in your letter to my brother on the 24th March as follows:—”I therefore suggest either a meeting of all of you so that you can pour out your hearts to one another and come to an understanding or if the poison has gone too deep to be eradicated, etc. etc.” You have not pursued this line in your subsequent letters. I have written to you more than once that on our side we are fully prepared to make a supreme effort to restore unity within the ranks of the Congress. I have said, further, that on our side there are plenty of people, including myself, who do not regard you as a partisan and who look up to you to bring together the warring elements. I may go further and say that there is no reason why you should regard only the Old Guard and their followers as Gandhiites. You may regard the whole Congress as Gandhiite, if only you accommodated some of our ideas and plans.
6. Re. My alternative suggestions:
(a) My first suggestion is that steps be taken to resume our fight for independence. In that event, you can demand from us any sacrifice that you consider necessary, including the surrender of all official positions that we may now have. We pledge our
unconditional support in the event of the fight bring resumed.
(b) Should you maintain that it is not possible to resume the struggle and should you like to install the Old Guard in office
— I would suggest your becoming a four-anna Congress member again and assuming direct charge of the Working Committee. That would obviate several difficulties which are bound to continue if you merely put the Old Guard in office again, keeping yourself out of the picture.
(c) Should this suggestion be also unacceptable to you and you persist in advising me to form a homogeneous cabinet, then I would request you to give me your vote of confidence till the next Congress. Your vote of confidence will ensure the support of your “orthodox” followers in the AICC. Thereby a split will be avoided and smooth working will be rendered possible. In this connection, I have humbly reminded you in my last letter of the 6th April that under Pandit Pant’s Resolution, the Working Committee has not only to be formed in accordance with your wishes, but it must be so formed as to enjoy your implicit confidence. Once you take cognisance of this resolution, it is not open to you to advise the formation of a Working Committee which does not enjoy your implicit confidence.
(d) Should you reject all the three suggestions, the only course left open will be for you to take the full responsibility of forming the Working Committee — leaving it to me to determine my future course of action when you have announced your decision.
7. Re. Your silence: You say in one of your letters that you were observing silence because I had requested you to do so. I must explain why I did so. At Tripuri the position was such and the gulf between Congressman and Congressman had so widened that felt that the only hope of maintaining unity rested in you. I felt then that it was necessary that you should take an impartial and dispassionate view of
the entire situation. Supporters of the Pant’s Resolution were making a rush for New Delhi and I naturally thought that they would try to influence you through a one-sided version of the Tripuri happenings. Consequently, I requested you not to make any public statement or utterance before you had heard the whole story of Tripuri — I mean, the different versions of that story. I am deeply grateful to you for complying with my request. The result of that has been that the whole country is still looking up to you to somehow save the Congress from civil war and restore unity within our ranks. If unfortunately the time comes — which God forbid — when you will take a partisan view of things, all hopes of unity will be dashed to the ground and in all probability we shall be plunged in civil war.
But I have now begun to feel that I should no longer put this gag on you. Consequently, if you feel that you should end your silence or if you feel that you have already heard all the versions of the Tripuri story — you are free to make any public statement or utterance that you like. I shall only beg of you to remember what all sections of Congressmen (and not merely the Old Guard) think and expect of you.
In conclusion, I must say that I was greatly disappointed when I got your telegrams from Delhi just before you suddenly left for Rajkot on the 7th instant. Dr Rajendra Prasad had telephoned to Birla House on my behalf on the 7th morning to inform you how anxious I was to meet you, as I felt that our correspondence was not leading to a solution and a heart-to-heart talk was necessary. Later in the day, my Doctor also telephoned to Birla House and Shri Mahadev Desai, who spoke at the other end, informed him that you would make a desperate attempt to come here and that, in any case, you would not leave Delhi till the next day, i.e., the 8th instant. I am so sorry that Rajkot has taken you away. I can only hope that what will be a blessing for Rajkot may not prove to be a tragedy for the Congress. If Rajkot had not taken you away suddenly in February, the history of the Tripuri Congress would have been written differently. You had the power to save the situation, but you were not available, in spite of repeated requests from the Reception
Committee and myself. In fact though the whole country naturally and spontaneously rallied round you, when you sent the ultimatum to the Thakore Sahib, a large section of your countrymen thought and still think that you could have postponed the Rajkot struggle by a few weeks without doing any harm to the cause of the Rajkot State people.
(Regarding the award of Sir Maurice Gwyer I would like to draw your attention to the fact that he signed it not in his personal capacity, but as the Chief Justice of India).
My letter has already become too lengthy and I must stop here. I hope you have stood the journey well and your improvement is maintained. I have been progressing steadily.
With Pranams
Yours affectionately,
Subhas.