Political Sufferers' Conference

CAWNPUR-28TH DECEMBER 1925

The Political Sufferers' Conference commenced its sitting on the 28th December. The gathering consisted of a large number of those who at one time or other had been to jail, with a fair sprinkling of Communists.

Swami KUMARANANDA, welcoming those present doubted if India would ever require Swaraj if Mahatma Gandhi could get non-violence established. The Non-co-operation movement failed because it was not a movement for suffering India but a spiritual movement. The Congress was at the brink of a fall. Where was the challenge to the Government of 1920? Should their sufferings go in vain? If rumour was true the Government of the United Provinces was about to promulgate the Ordinance on the basis of the Kakori train dacoity. Political sufferers must unite to lighten sufferings of soldiers for freedom.

Presidential Address

Swami GOVINDANAND, President, at the outset, cleared the misapprehension that this was a conference of dacoits and revolutionaries. It was a conference of those who for the sake of India winning freedom were prepared even to shed their blood. They considered the suspension of the 1921 programme as a national disgrace and wanted it to be resumed. Liberty first and unity thereafter, was their motto. The vain pursuit after HinduMuslim unity was the cause of all political blunders and disasters. The way to Swaraj lay through the prisons. They did not want politics and politicians but patriotism and patriots. Civil Disobedience (Satyagraha) was the only method of achieving Swaraj, and not bombs, nor spinning-wheels, nor Council debates.

Swami Govindanand in course of his address styled the Conference as a Conference of the Indian Emancipation Army, for theirs was the living faith that through prison and gallows lay the way to freedom. Remember the times, said he, when they were not only prosecuted and subjected to torments by the Government but were disowned by their party-very nation whose battle of self-respect and freedom they were fighting with very slender resources-nay, actually pooh poohed and considered as political untouchables. Through all those stages the sufferers had passed undaunted.

Attitude of Congress

It was only in 1917 when a resolution was moved from the Congress platform demanding release of detenues that the Congress gave some of them its first official recognition. But still they were not recognised as the builders of the nation. Yet they continued to serve the country believing that the way to freedom was through the horrors of Jallianwalla Bagh. Mahatma Gandhi forced attention to this truth but he had to abandon his

movement in the last Congress at Belgaum, when a resolution for relief to political sufferers and their families was rejected. That rejection was a calamity greater than the Bardoli retreat and it was a blow severer than the Bengal ordinance. Whatever concessions Britishers had been forced to yield had been wrung out by the sacrifices of these men whom the Congress was slow to recognise. That was his grievance against the Congress. If the Congress still refused to recognise them he would advise political sufferers to organise themselves. They must first be fully initiated into the mystery of sacrifice and then the enjoyment of fruits of victory.

How to Protect the Patriots

Proceeding Swami Govindanand observed that it was vain to protest against the Bengal Ordinance and Kakori dacoity cases. Government in so many words said: "If you are out to destroy us, we are out to destroy you." The Conference must, therefore, consider means of protecting their patriots against molestations and crushing out of existence. They must have an association in each province to keep a record of such persecutions. He felt that now that the U. P. Government had been forced to release some Kakori dacoity prisoners it would soon apply for an Ordinance, and the bogey or revolutionary societies, spread in every village and hamlet of the United Provinces and bands of dacoits and assassins threatening the life of every Englishman, would be raised "to justify the burial alive of every honest son and servant of India in British bastilles." There was no hope of national salvation through the Councils and spinning wheels. They wanted patriots and patriotism and not politicians and politics. Indians would gladly remain within this Empire if Britain forthwith abandoned the narrow idea of British Empire.

Indian Political Sufferers Abroad

Referring to Indian political sufferers abroad the President alluded to the fact that some of them were denied passports to return to their home and the properties of some had been confiscated and their dependants are starving. It would be impossible to bring these people back to India without winning freedom. But they could meanwhile establish connections with them and they should be ambassadors of Indian national movement in foreign lands. There should, therefore, be a Foreign Office for this Conference which would keep itself in touch with these nationals abroad and the latter in turn would suggest to us here the ways and means of changing tactics to suit altered conditions.

The President also urged starting of an organ in which would be recorded the history of Indians' struggle for freedom.

The States Subjects' Conference

CAWNPUR-29TH DECEMBER 1925.

Presidential Address

Presiding over the 3rd session of the All-India States Subjects' Conference, Mr. SHANKERLAL KAUL said that the inauguration of the Montford Reforms had drawn the people's attention to Indian States, and the forms of administration prevalent there. But the speaker deprecated the confusion of ideas on the subject of the future of Indian States. Gandhiji had, himself, recognised that they must provide for Indian States in the future Constitution of India. The speaker did not think there was such a thing as Government, by the people, for the people," existent in any part of the world. Russia showed them what an Eastern Democracy could become. In U.S.A., Democracy had become an actual danger. They had all read about lynching, the Klu Klux Klan and the recent monkey trial. In Italy, Mussolini was the sole dictator. They need not therefore be anxious in India to introduce the latest western experiment. If limited monarchy was good enough for Great Britain, it should be good enough for Indian States.

The President asked the audience to remember that the States were more Indian than the provinces in British India. He believed in the process of evolving a common political destiny for whole of India. The relations between the Government of India and the States were, in theory dependent on treaties and sannads; but while these ensured the integrity of the States, there had always been an understanding that the Rulers, in their turn, should have a corresponding obligation of administering their States on sound lines. Mr. Kaul assured that even under self-government, the integrity of the States would not be disturbed. The Swaraj Party had left the Political Department out of their programme. If the Princes were wise, they would appreciate the modest ambitions of the people; but by denying the desire for legitimate ambitions they would stimulate desire for illegitimate ambitions. By behaving like little Czars they would become fathers of Bolshevism in India.

As to what changes should take place in the administration of Indian States was a big question. They could not think of British India as an entity; similarly they could not think of Indian States as one. The States were, in a real sense, independent of one another, and, theoretically, at least, independent of British India. Again the States were in varying stages of advancement. They could not, therefore, lay down a cut and dry programme applicable to all; but they could propound only the general proposals. He urged for the encouragement of local talent and quoted Lord Hardinge's address to an Indian Prince, wherein the ex-Viceroy had urgėd: 'Build up within your own States a body of your own subjects, on whom you can rely, to serve you. Take them, educate them. Select the best. Fit them for high places, and, when fit, confer high places on them. Give them responsibility and power. Enlist their interests and sympathy

in the work of the administration, and I confidently predict that you will not regret the step you have taken.' Another reform needed was that in States where there was no proper system of revenue collection, the needed reform should be introduced, and the peasantry saved from oppression by petty officials. It was also necessary to have codes of law for judicial administration. Complaints regarding lawless procedure were by no means uncommon in States. But finance was the most important question. The States were not zamindaris and jagirs. In some cases there was reckless misuse of public money. The Princes drew as much as they liked. There was no proper budgeting, auditing or accounting. Budget system should be introduced and the Princes should draw only the maximum of five per cent. of the State revenue for themselves and their entourage. That would be comparatively, more in proportion than their King-Emperor drew in England. Surpluses should be utilised for reduction of taxation.

Mr. Kaul pleaded for freedom of the speech. The Indian Princes should not consider their States sacrosanct. Instances of blackmailing had come to his notice. But that did not justify all the restrictions put on the press. His suggestions would not satisfy the people in the advanced States, but he had to give only a broad outline for all States. In dealing with Provinces, they must remember they would be dealing with their own people.

As for adoption of the constructive programme of Gandhiji, about khaddar and untouchability, definite proposals should be drawn up by a special committee. Mr. Kaul pleaded that instead of meeting only annually they should have a permanent organisation. He pleaded that the leaders should understand the system of government in the State, and not urge revolutionary changes. Above all, he appealed to the Princes to strengthen their position by responding to the spirit of the times. It was for them to show to the world that hereditary rulership could possess all the advantages of perfect democracy, without being open to its evils.

CAWNPUR-30TH DECEMBER 1925.

The Indian States Subjects' Conference met next day and passed a number of resolutions. First of all, it passed a resolution of condolence regarding the death of the Maharajas of Gwalior and Kashmir. Secondly, it framed a constitution declaring that the object of the Conference was the attainment of Responsible Government in Indian States by all legitimate and peaceful means.

Then, on the motion of Seth Jamanlal Bajaj, seconded by Manilal Kothari, the Conference passed a resolution, deploring the Nimucharna tragedy in Alwar, and, still further, the obstinate refusal of the State to permit an open and impartial enquiry into the causes of the atrocities and the irregularities committed by the State Police and Officers.

The Conference, while extending its warmest sympathy to the many bereaved families and to those rendered homeless by the wanton destruction of property in the name of law and order, wished that the Conference had the power to render some effective assistance to them in their present trial.

National Liberal Federation

CALCUTTA-28TH DECEMBER 1925

The opening of the 8th Session of the Nationl Liberal Federation took place in the Town Hall on the 28th December, Sir Moropaut Joshi presided. Babu Krishna Kumar Mitter was the Chairman of the Reception Committee. The delegates numbered about 200 including those of Bengal. A batch of boys and girls sang a Vedic hymn and then the National Anthem-" Bande Mataram" after which the Conference opened.

Sir Chimanlal SETALVAD in proposing Sir Moropant Joshi to the chair said that the Chairman of the Reception Committee observed in his address that the Liberal Party and its principles had been thoroughly vindicated. That was, he said, perhaps literally true: When the cult of non-co-operation and civil disobedience was started by that great magician of Ahmedabad it was the Liberal Party that kept its head on that occasion. When the triple boycott was started by that great magician, it failed miserably and when they soon realised how wrong they were those, who formed what was called the Non-co-operation party, made up their mindsat least some of them-to enter the Councils. As they were all aware they were keeping up the pretence that they were entering the Councils for the purpose of non-co-operating, they wanted to non-co-operate still within the Councils and make Government impossible. They failed to make it impossible by triple boycott; they failed to make it impossible by that pretended non-co-operation in the Councils. On the contrary, as they were aware, they had done on many occasions all that was possible to doall that lay in their power-to co-operate, and one of them had taken the presidentship of the Assembly (laughter). What greater proof of the success of co-operation could there be. He was there sitting in the chair to work the constitution which they despised-the very constitution, which, they said, they went into the Councils to destroy. They realised again-at least some of them-that it would not do to go into the Councils to throw down all measures, to throw out budgets and to do the rest of it. It won't do. They would do all that and not take office! Therefore they had now started the cult of responsive co-operation and they wanted to take office but again to keep up the pretence. The speaker saw in the newspapers the other day that they wanted to take office for the purpose of obstructing from within, for making Government impossible by taking office. They would still keep up the pretence and would clamour for exploding theories which had been discredited by them. However he would say that they were growing wiser.

Then they had their friends, the Independents, They had taken seven years to discover what the Liberal Party thought all along from the beginning. They now realised that the Swarajist tactics would not do they must make frantic efforts to join hands with the people and to stop the mischief that the Swarajists were doing. Therefore some of them in a patronising