Indian

N the January number of the Review, in noticing the proceedings of the Delhi Congress we had occasion to criticise the graceless manner in which the Congress chose to deal with the work of the British Committee in London. We ventured to call in question the soundness of the charges levelled against the Committee; and -we condemned the action of the Congress as ill-advised and unworthy of a body of responsible men. Following this ungrateful resolution of the Congress a letter signed by five Indian gentlemen adversely criticising the work of the British Congress Committee appeared in the Indian Press. This action of Mr. Tilak, Mr. S. Kasturiranga Aiyangar of the Hindu and their associates was condemned by the moderates as at once ungenerous and unjust to the self-sacrificing labours of a most honourable and distinguished body of Englishmen who have been giving of their best for the cause of India. Dr. G. B. Clark, acting Chairman of the British Congress Committee, has now addressed a letter to the General Secretaries of the Indian National Congress replying to the "inaccurate and misleading statements five Indian gentlemen. "The Committee," says Dr. Clark,

"" of the

"might have treated the letter with silence were it not for the fact that some of the signatories have influence in India; and the action taken at the last Congress regarding the financing of the Committee shows that it is necessary for the Committee to state the real position of affairs."

The letter continues :

The British Committee has always been an independent body, mainly British in character and composition, working in association with Congress leaders whom it advised on the bearings of the British political situation upon Indian questions. Throughout its existence, it has fought the battles for reform of the Indian Administration, and for the extension of Indian self-government, against official hostility and public apathy. Its members have served without fee or reward of any kind. With them, working in harmony with the Congress leaders, it has been a matter of duty to endeavour to secure at the earliest possible opportunity the ideal of self-government held before Indian people in the Royal Proclamation on the assumption of the government of the country by the Crown. The policy of the Committee has always been to demand for India a measure of self-government similar to that granted to the dominions, which, while maintaining the supremacy of the Crown, will give a free hand to the Indian people in all solely Indian matters. The Committee will continue to press for

such a solution of the Indian problem, and will support all measures in that direction.

Most of the members of the Committee have been members of Parliament and all of them have had wide experience of public life and political agitation in England. To presume to give orders to this body of selfless and devoted workers who are in close touch with the currents of political thought in the heart of the Empire is, to put it mildly, somewhat presumtuous.

They know the political conditions and the methods of agitation best calculated to advance the cause of Indian reform better than the five Indian gentlemen, most of whom have spent only a few weeks or months in England.

And then the signatories are under a delusion that the British Congress Committee is entirely dependent on the Congress for its sustenance. As a matter of fact, the Congress has not been quite alive to the needs of the Committee and has not done all that it should or could have done to maintain this great organisation in London. Dr. Clark says frankly :

The signatories share a not uncommon, but erroneous, impression that the British Committee has been entirely supported by the direct contributions of the Congress. During the last six years (1913-18) the delegates' fees remitted amount to some £3,849, while the Committee's expenditure during that period was £6,378-the difference being met by contributions from Congressmen and other friends of Indian reform. In this connection it may be well to recall the words of Sir W. Wedderburn, quoted in the annual report dated November 28, 1901 as to the financial situation in the past. He then said: The real fact is that although the Congress votes and sanctions expenditure, it pays but a fraction of the amount it votes, and leaves the British Committee to perform costly and laborious duties with money found by themselves and their personal friends.' The work of the Committee has too often been crippled and retarded for want of money.

Regarding the journal India the maintenance of which is an important part of the propaganda work of the Committee, Dr. Clark says:

It became the property of a joint stock company in 1903 to save it from collapse owing to the failure of the Congress to supply the necessary funds. Like every other purely propagandist organ it does not pay its way. The deficit in 1918 was heavier than usual owing to the decline in the number of subscribers in India, and the greatly increased cost of production under war conditions. The Congress had pledged itself to the maintenance of the journal, which was especially desirable in view of the Reform proposals before Parliament, and the Committee

defrayed the loss sustained from its funds. The whole of the facts concerning cost, circulation, etc., were made known to Congress leaders by a letter from Sir W. Wedderburn, dated April 16, 1916, printed and circulated to every member of the All-India Congress Committee as well as in several letters to the general secretaries during 1918. The statement that the views of the India Office are reflected, if not actually voiced, by the British Committee and the newspaper India' only proves the imperfect knowledge of the five signatories of British politics and the views of the India Office.

Such a statement is thoroughly misleading; and as Mr. G. K. Devadhar of the Servants of India Society who was one of the members of the Press Deputation but who was not consulted by any of the five signatories, points out in a communication to the press, is "absolutely without foundation." It is the height of ingratitude to charge its present Editor, Mr. Po'ak, a man distinguished alike by his integrity and devotion to our cause, with receiving inspiration from the India Office.

an

There can be nothing farther from the facts. Neither the Committee nor its organ has anything whatever to do with the India Office and I can characterize this attempt to blacken the fair name of the Committee and its organ by no milder term than 'Wicked'. The newspaper India is as independent in its attitude towards the Government as Mr. Tilak, or Mr. Iyengar or Mr. Ghose's own paper, as unprejudiced perusal of its successive issues will show to any fair-minded reader of its columns. If I am right, its policy has always been to co-operate with the Government when possible and to oppose it when necessary, and I do not think the paper has, under its present editorship, departed even by a hair's breadth from that policy. Its present editor is at least as honourable and truly devoted, as any of the signatories, to the interest of India; he has made India's cause his own and has suffered for its sake. Mr. Polak in letter to the Leader of Allahabad exposes the misstatements contained in a communication published in the Mahratta of February 9, regarding an interview between Mr. Tilak and Mr. Polak in London. Now the interview itself was on Mr. Tilak's own request to remain a private one. But the London Correspondent of Mr. Tilak's organ has made a statement for which, says Mr. Polak, there was no justification :

a

It says that the British Committee of the Indian National Congress is not disposed to carry on any propaganda according to the special resolutions passed at Bombay and re-affirmed at Delhi. Mr. Polak interviewed Mr. Tilak on the subject. He is unwilling to do anything according to the Congress programme'.

What was the subject of the interview which Mr. Polak sought with Mr. Tilak? It was with

reference to certain hand-bills which Mr. Tilak caused to be circulated. Mr. Pulak thought them frankly inexpedient. And then :

In discussing the resolutions passed at the Bombay Congress, I told him that in many respects they did not seem to me to differ intrinsically from those passed at the Moderates' Conference; but that I considered that the demand for a time-limit was impractical and would be ineffective and that it was also opposed to what I understood to be constitutional practice in this country. I was, therefore, not disposed to advocate such a demand, which, I was sure, would be futile; but that regarding as I did the demand as an indication and symbol of the deep distrust and suspicion entertained by Indians towards the bureaucracy, I should, on all suitable occasions, as in fact I had already done, warn my countrymen against any impediments being placed in the way of the grant of complete responsible government to India at the earliest date, and of the danger of attaching too much importance to the over-cautious counsels of re-actionaries here and in India. There was a great deal of other discussion between use at this interview, ! but Mr. Tilak expressly asked me at the time our conversation remain a private one. "So far as I am concerned," writes Mr. Polak in conclusion,

to let

the statement contained in the letter to the Mahratta is inaccurate in most of its essentials. In the first place, the Delhi resolutions did much more than re-affir n those passed at Bombay Secondly, at them date of the interview, their nature was not known here. Thirdly, I did not interview Mr. Tilak on the subject of these resolutions; but on quite a different matter, discussion on the resolutions arising only in the course of general conversation thereafter. Fourthly, I did not tell Mr. Tilak that I was unwilling to do anything according to the Congress programme. I very strongly protest against what I can only describe as a breach of confidence on Mr. Titak's part and a quite unjustified distortion of my conversation with him and a misrepresentation of my position I may add, in conclusion, that I have informed him that I hold myself released from any obligation of privacy in regard to this interview having regard to my treatment at his hands, and that I regret that in future it will be impossible for me to enter into any further relations of a confidential character with him or his friends.

The British Committee, feeling that their propaganda work would be handicapped without an effective journal, have urged leaders in India to take steps to make the journal self-supporting and efficient. They advise the Congress to send. to London a fully qualified Indian journalist to undertake the duties of an Editor. "The Committee will be glad," writes Dr. Clark in conclusion, "the committee will be glad to meet the deputation appointed by the Congress and cooperate with it in order to make the new Indian Reforms Bill a measure of real Self-Government,"

Japan's Place in the League of Nations

Mr. K. Hayashi, M. P., Professor of Diplomacy in the Keiogifuku University, has contributed a very illuminating and thoughtful article on "Japan and the League of Nations" in the February number of The Japan Magazine. Though the idea of the League of Nations has first been regarded as a form of extreme idealism in politics, it has by this time gained such a strong ground as to demand serious consideration in the political world of to-day. In future, all attempts of Nations to stand aloof from the international family for purposes of selfish greed or aggression must be prevented at all costs, and it is quite obvious that Japan must be a party to it or stand apart to her peril. After looking at certain features likely to result from the enforcement of the policy of a League of Nations, Prof. Hayashi remarks that those Nations that have won their places in the world, gaining great advantages, will be guaranteed the status quo and be allowed to enjoy the superior advantages gained in the past, while the less fortunate Nations will be also kept in the status quo and remain unable to improve their opportunities for territorial expansion and National Progress. Such a policy will undoubtedly militate against the interests of Japan and she "will be enable to expand without violation to the terms of the League of Nations. Therefore, Japan will agree to this principle, provided that Nations be assured of opportunity for natural development, subject to no artificial or fatal restrictions. Prof. Hayashi observes:

:

If the League of Nations ought to preclude the enactment of laws or regulations prejudicial to foreigners wishing to enter another country or live therein domestic laws must then be drawn up with a view to the convenience rather than the inconvenience of strangers. All must be based on the principles of humanity rather than on self-interest. Laws at least must be just and impartial. This justice or impartiality does not now exist between Nations. Are the

35

prospective members of the League of Nations ready to adopt such principles and honestly put them into practice?

No difficulty can arise about maintaining this absence of discrimination among white men. It is when we come to relations between these races and other races that the danger arises. There is no doubt that Japan has been discriminated against racially by Western Nations, and she is still suffering this injustice and indignity.

In America and the British Colonies the common people of Japan are excluded by law. Those few that are permitted to live in these countries have to submit to vexing restrictions in regard to land, and therefore are deprived of full liberty in regard to natural development and prosperity. This is quite contrary to the idea of the League of Nations as well as against the dictates of justice and humanity. The situation then is that the Japanese are not placed in a position of equality with Western races in any part of the Western world. With her very limited territory and rapidly increasing population this interference with natural freedom is very difficult to tolerate. Now when a nation is thus placed in a position where she has to make overseas expansion or suffer congestion and decline what is she to do? ·

Prof. Hayashi thinks that, unless the League of Nations gaurantees to every race full freedom for the natural development of its talents and opportunities, it becomes only a pretext for the retention of certain monopoly, if there be any monopoly that can be fair.

The League of Nations, to ensure itself of permanence, must be more than a name. It must embody humane principles and practise them. No doubt the last thing that President Wilson would think of allowing would be injustice, unfair discrimination or any form of unrighteousness. But whether he allows it or not, the League he proposes might easily be managed to retain the present injustices to oriental races, unless the guarantees to the contrary are explicit. At all events Japan feels seriously bound to call the attention of the Allies to the above point as of vital importance to her. It is a principle for which Japan must stand up at all hazards.

The proposed League of Nations, in order to secure peace, must, therefore, see that Right is respected; and the rights of the small Nations equally with those of the larger Nation. If the League should ignore the rights of races it would be worse than no League, for it would be less easy to defeat. Japan's right to racial equality is still ignored. Will the League continue this injustice?