Jealgora P.O., Distt. Manbhum, Bihar, the 13th April, 1939.
My dear Mahatmaji,
I thought that my letter of the 10th was going -to be the last, but that is not to be. This morning I got up very early and as sleep had forsaken me, I began musing over our common problems in the stillness of the morning twilight. Then I went through our whole correspondence again and found that some points needed further clarification.
You said in your letter of the 30th March that at Segaon on the 15th February we had agreed that we had differences on fundamentals. We did discover in the course of our conversation certain differences but I am not sure that one should regard them as differences on fundamentals. You then mentioned many or most of the points you have now touched in your letters. For instance, you gave out your views on the question of corruption, violence, etc. and you spoke strongly against my idea of ultimatum and struggle for Swaraj, as you felt that the atmosphere for non-violent mass action did not
exist. But are these differences of a fundamental character and should they warrant our giving up all hope of joint action? The question of programme is one for the Congress to decide. We can individually put forward our ideas and plans — but it is for the Congress to adopt them or reject them My main proposition regarding ultimatum and struggle for Swaraj was turned down by the Tripuri Congress, but I make no grievance on that score. Such delays are inherent in democracy. I still believe that I was right and that the Congress will one day realise it and I only hope that it will not be too late then. Now granting that all the above differences exist, why should we not, nevertheless, be able to work together? These differences have not sprung up suddenly today. They have existed for some time and we have collaborated together in spite of them. These, or similar differences will exist even in future and we shall have to do the same then (viz., collaborate together for the sake of the common cause).
You will kindly remember that at Segaon we talked for nearly an hour solely on the question of composite, vs. homogeneous cabinet, but we had to agree to differ. Towards the end of our three-hour talk I said that I would
.nevertheless make a last effort to secure the cooperation of Sardar Patel and others when we next meet. Perhaps if I had not fallen ill and if we had met on the occasion of the Working Committee meeting at Wardha on the 22nd February, joint action would have been easier to achieve.
There is another remark in your letter of the 30th March with which I do not agree, but which I did not refer to earlier through oversight. You said in effect that if my policy had the support of the majority in the All India Congress Committee, I should have a Working Committee composed exclusively of those who believed in that policy. Our viewpoint clearly is that even if we have a majority in the AICC we should still have a composite cabinet, because the personnel of the cabinet should reflect as far as possible the composition of the general body of the Congress and it should command the confidence of as large majority within the Congress as possible. In the circumstances which face us today in India and abroad the principle of a homogeneous cabinet for the Congress is, in our view, inherently wrong. This is the time for us to broaden our national front and should we
commence doing so by constituting our National Executive — the Working Committee — on a narrow party basis?
On the question of corruption we are in general agreement, except that I feel that you take a somewhat exaggerated view of it. I do not know if taking India as a whole, one could say that there has been an appreciable increase of it. In any case, I do feel that even if there has been an increase, we are not yet incapacitated for a national struggle. And while investigating the cause of corruption, we should consider if the suspension of our struggle, and the taste of the loaves and fishes of office have not been predominantly contributing factors. And as I said in my last letter, perhaps a call for further sacrifice and suffering will serve as a proper antidote and lift the nation to a higher ethical plane.
Rajen Babu very kindly paid me a visit on the 6th instant. We discussed labour questions of common interest and then turned to Congress affairs. When I first started correspondence with you I had hoped that we would be able to settle the problem of the Working Committee in this way and that the larger problems could be left over for our subsequent meeting. But as our correspondence proceeded, I realised that it was not leading to a solution. By the time Rajen Babu came, I was feeling like making a desperate attempt to meet you, regardless of medical advice, hoping that it might bring us to a settlement. So Rajen Babu, at my request, telephoned to Birla House suggesting a meeting. When Rajen Babu did not give me encouraging news, I thought I would try again. So my doctor telephoned to Birla House again in the afternoon and I sent an express telegram — to both of which you replied saying that Rajkot affairs were compelling you to leave Delhi at once. I felt then and I still feel that Rajkot has taken possession of your soul at the cost, and perhaps to the great misfortune, of the Indian National Congress. To people like myself, Congress affairs — particularly at this juncture — appear to be a thousand times more important than the call of Rajkot. One should have thought that after the award of Sir Maurice Gwyer, Sardar Patel would be able to handle the Rajkot situation, without requiring your personal presence there for such a long time. However, it is no use lamenting now, when you have made a decision and have acted in accordance with it.
In one of your telegrams of the 7th April you suggested that my brother Sarat or some other representative could run up or fly to Rajkot and meet you there. I am afraid that this is not a workable proposition If direct correspondence fails to produce a satisfactory result, what result can talks through a representative bring, when the problem is so difficult and delicate? No, I feel that sending a representative to Rajkot will not improve matters. Only a direct talk between us could have done so.
Your letter of the 10th instant has just come in and I have to make a few observations on it. I regret to say that your replies to most of the points are disappointing to me. The whole letter breathes the spirit of pessimism which I cannot possibly share. I am afraid also that you have laid too much stress on personal issues. You should have sufficient faith in our patriotism to hope that we shall be able to transcend such issues when a national emergency has arisen. If we cannot restore unity within the Congress, how can we hope for unity in the country?
Regarding the Pant Resolution, You have given me practically no advice.
If you feel so hopeless about non-violent mass action in the States also, how do you hope to win civil liberty and responsible government for the States’ people? After all, our only sanction is non-violent mass action and deprived of it, we have to fall back on a purely moderate policy or your vicarious self- sacrifice. You say that you have stopped civil disobedience wherever you have influence. We know that you did so in Rajkot and there you took the whole burden upon yourself and staked your life for it. Is that fair either to your countrymen or to the Rajkot State people? Your life is not yours to risk whenever you chose to do so. Your countrymen may legitimately demand your guidance and help in a larger sphere than Rajkot. And so far as the Rajkot people are concerned, if they win their Swaraj not through their own efforts and sacrifices, but through your self-immolation, they will remain politically undeveloped and will not be able to retain the Swaraj which you may win for them. Lastly, when there are so many battles to be fought and on so many fronts, how often can you stake your precious life in this way?
You have despaired altogether of our collaborating on the political and economic platform. You have added the economic, probably because you disapproved of our idea of industrial planning for India, even though we advocate encouragement of suitable cottage industries along with industrialisation. With regard to political differences, I still fail to comprehend what difference you regard as fundamental and as an insurmountable obstacle in the path of unity and joint action. If you still maintain that such action is impossible, then the outlook — at least the immediate outlook — for the Congress is gloomy indeed. I had been hoping all these days that through you the gulf would somehow be bridged and thereby a great national calamity averted.
The irreconcilable elements to which you refer, whether they be good, bad or indifferent, are elements which have come to stay. Consequently if today joint action be impossible, it will be impossible for all time. That means that the future has in store for us nothing but blank despair. With our youthful and robust optimism and our undying faith in India’s future, how can we accept such a proposition?
You have suggested in several letters that I should formulate my policy and programme immediately and place them before the AICC — but I have been commissioned by the Congress to form the Working Committee in a particular way and that is my immediate duty. My programme was placed before the Tripuri Congress in my presidential speech and it was not adopted. At the present moment I do not feel called upon to place a programme before the AICC while the issue of the Working Committee remains unsettled.
You said in your first letter that the initiative lies with me. Accordingly I have been placing before you my ideas as well as my solutions of the immediate problems now facing us. I see that all or most of the suggestions put forward by me do not find favour with you. Consequently, it is now time for you to take the initiative and communicate your wishes regarding the personnel of the Working Committee. The Pant Resolution required that the Working
Committee should not only be formed according to your wishes but that it should also enjoy your implicit confidence.
I put forward for your consideration some alternative proposals. In the first place, I suggested a resumption of the national struggle which would automatically solve most of our present difficulties. This suggestion is unacceptable to you. Secondly, I suggested that if I were to form a homogeneous cabinet according to your advice, you may please give me your vote of confidence. This also you say is not possible. Thirdly, I suggested that you should come forward and assume direct control of the Working Committee which step again would remove many obstacles and obviate many difficulties. You have not replied to this suggestion of mine. If you turn this down as well, then the initiative must pass from my hands to yours and you will have to undertake the responsibility of forming the Working Committee.
One thing is clear in any case. I regret that I cannot possibly give effect to your advice to form a homogeneous cabinet out of the members of our side. This advice militates against the resolution of the Congress, which provides that the Working Committee must have your implicit confidence. Moreover, in my humble opinion, a homogeneous cabinet in the present circumstances will be against the best interests of the country. It will not be truly representative of the general body of the Congress and what is more, it will give rise to acute dissensions and possibly civil war among ourselves.
I hope you will now fulfil the task imposed on you by the Tripuri Congress. If you refuse to do even that, what shall I then do? Shall I report the matter to the AICC and ask them to elect the Working Committee? Or have you any other advice to give me?
I hope Ba is better now and will soon recover. How is your health and particularly your blood pressure ? I am progressing steadily.
With respectful Pranams
Yours affectionately,
Subhas.
P. S. — You have said in your letter under reply (of the 10th instant) in reply to my request for a vote of confidence from you that the members of the AICC should exercise their own judgment in dealing with the Working Committee that I may form, without being burdened by your opinion or mandate. It would be far better to let them exercise their own judgment in the very formation of the Working Committee. If I cannot give effect to your advice, which.is also against the terms of the Pant Resolution and if you do not form the Working Committee yourself, then the AICC must accept the responsibility of electing the Working Committee. Can you suggest any other solution?